House of Commons

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

Thursday 27 February 2014

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of changes to the energy company obligation on consumers.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

We will shortly be consulting on changes to the energy company obligation. We are aware of a number of ECO-funded solid wall insulation projects that are not going forward, but we have been encouraged by the large number of households that have already benefited from ECO measures, which is now estimated at nearly 450,000 properties at the end of December 2013. Moreover, thanks to the package of changes that I announced on 2 December 2013, which included the proposed ECO changes, consumers across the UK are set to see their energy bills reduced this year by an average of £50.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Secretary of State already knows the devastating impact that his changes are having on thousands of residents in Clifton in my constituency who live in hard-to-treat homes, but what hope can he offer to the 12 local youngsters who, after completing their initial training, were due to start year-long apprenticeships in installing solid wall insulation when his change of policy put their futures and hundreds more green jobs on hold?

[Mr Davey]

I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomes the many ECO measures in her constituency. The ECO measures that we announced in December prolong the programme for two more years and have a particular focus on fuel poverty, which I would hope that she welcomes. We will announce quite soon our proposals on incentives for people who want to invest in green deal measures, through which I am sure she will see real benefits for solid wall.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the news that the energy company obligation scheme will offer targeted support to low-income households until at least March 2017. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is often the poorest families who live in the worst insulated and hardest-to-heat homes, and that these targeted measures have the potential greatly to reduce energy costs in such difficult-to-reach houses?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a result of our changes, we believe that more ECO measures will help more households. The fact that we have managed to ensure that the affordable warmth and carbon-saving community obligation aspects of the ECO will be extended at the existing rate for two more years is extremely good news for our efforts on fuel poverty.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Last month, in answer to a question from me, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), said that he would speak to the energy companies about the fact that under the affordable warmth aspect of ECO, as run by them, off-grid gas boilers are not available. Has any progress been made on that, and will the Secretary of State take action to end that discrimination?

[Mr Davey]

We have listened to several representations on that and other areas. We will shortly publish the consultation document on the ECO, to which the hon. Gentleman might want to respond formally, as well as our fuel poverty strategy, which will cover some of the issues that he raises.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Emma Reynolds.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. He does not look like her and she does not look like him; I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. More specifically, I apologise to the hon. Lady.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

This time last year, work under the affordable warmth component of the ECO—the element that helps low-income households—was trading on the brokerage at between 25p and 30p in the pound. Today it is trading at just 6p, which means that a maximum of £840 is available for each job, whereas last year £3,500 would have been available. Given that the Government’s figures on the boiler scrappage scheme show that 96% of boiler replacements cost more than £1,000, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that such work is being done legitimately, safely and responsibly, or even at all?

[Mr Davey]

It is certainly being done in great numbers, and we can contrast the situation with that under the Warm Front scheme that the previous Government introduced. In 2010-11, about 80,000 households received help under that scheme at a cost of £366 million, but in the first year of affordable warmth, 130,000 households benefited at a cost of £350 million.

The hon. Lady—the hon. Gentleman; I am making the same mistake as you, Mr Speaker, so I do not know what it is about the hon. Gentleman today. However, I am surprised that he complains about costs coming down, because I would have thought that he would welcome that. He knows that there is regulation to ensure that standards are met.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

More than 450,000 homes received energy efficiency improvements in 2013 as a result of the coalition’s pioneering energy company obligation and green deal measures. We expect that figure to grow substantially in 2014 and that the green deal market will continue to expand.

[Gemma Doyle]

I hear what the Minister says, but more than 7 million homes in the UK are without adequate loft insulation and more than 5 million are without cavity wall insulation, so will he explain why the number of households getting help through Government programmes fell last year by more than 90%?

[Gregory Barker]

It is slightly misleading to talk about 7 million lofts with inadequate loft insulation. They may not have the full amount of insulation, but the amount that they lack varies significantly.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

So it is inadequate.

[Gregory Barker]

So it is inadequate. We now need to move on, not just to simple measures such as loft insulation, but to a much broader holistic approach to home insulation—whole house retrofits. They are more complex and more expensive, but they also cannot be done just with subsidy. The Labour party has to make a choice. Do Labour Members want to force up consumer bills giving ever more subsidy to a small number of people, or do they want to work with us to create a genuine new market where people are incentivised to pay for themselves?

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The green deal has the potential to revolutionise energy efficiency, but we all need to understand how we can ensure that our constituents link into it. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that the green deal is as straightforward and efficient as possible, and that as many people as possible in north Oxfordshire can benefit from it?

[Gregory Barker]

During the past few months we have certainly been taking advantage of the fact that we now have the green deal up and running, and we have been improving the experience of the green deal, both for the consumer and the supply chain. We have now had more than 145,000 assessments by the green deal, and we know that it is getting high levels of customer satisfaction and that more than 80% of people who have had an assessment are moving on to install measures.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Since the privatisation of the public utilities, in Yorkshire the gas is now owned by the Germans, electricity by the Chinese and water by the Singaporeans. Should not the six major energy companies be driving this bid? We know that the Government are really lacking in green energy and the green deal. Why cannot the Minister galvanise the six energy companies, or should I ask Mrs Merkel this morning?

[Gregory Barker]

We should celebrate foreign investment in the UK and welcome the fact that the UK, particularly under the coalition Government, is becoming a world centre for inward investment. We are seeing investment in the green energy sector reach record highs—more than £30 billion since the coalition came into government —and seeing the amount of clean energy that we are generating take us up the European league table from the miserable second from bottom place that we used to occupy under the last Government.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

One of the groups most deserving of benefit, from the warm home scheme in particular, are those who live in park homes, of which we have many in North Wiltshire. Due to the curious anomaly that electricity payers have to match exactly the people listed in the Department for Work and Pensions, they are not eligible for the warm home discount. Will the Minister find some way of getting around this anomaly, so that these deserving people, who live in their own homes, many of which are the coldest that could possibly be imagined, benefit from the scheme?

[Gregory Barker]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tenacity in raising this issue. He is right. Park home owners and occupants have traditionally had a very poor deal compared with other consumers. We do not have the full answer yet, but I am determined to try to improve their lot, and I will be happy to meet him to try to iron out some of these quite difficult problems where people do not own the meter. There must be more that we can do.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

A staggering amount of electricity is used and several large power stations kept running simply to power electronic devices such as televisions and computers that are left on standby. What can the Minister do, perhaps with other Departments, to try to tackle the problem of electronic devices having to be left on?

[Gregory Barker]

My hon. Friend asks a good question. Such electronic devices are largely covered by EU-wide product standards rather than just domestic initiatives. Innovation is the key, and that is what we want to spur. DECC has an innovation fund, and if my hon. Friend has some suggestions, I would be happy to hear them.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish to be unkind, but the Minister does perambulate in a mildly eccentric fashion. If he feels that he can face the House in answering questions, that would be greatly to the advantage of both the hon. Gentleman and the House.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the prices charged by the six largest energy companies.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

We announced in the annual energy statement that Ofgem would work with the Office of Fair Trading and the new Competition and Markets Authority to deliver the first annual competition assessment in late March, early April. These independent competition authorities have set out the remit for this assessment. They have said that they will look at prices, as well as profits and other relevant matters.

I recently wrote to those competition authorities, drawing to their attention three specific matters that have received little attention in the energy price debate but which I consider are of strategic importance, including profits, prices and market share in the domestic gas supply market. It is for the regulators to decide what steps they now wish to take in light of all the evidence.

[Diana Johnson]

Given that 31,000 winter deaths were caused by the cold during last winter and that there will be further rises in energy bills this year, why does the coalition give a higher priority to maintaining the energy cartel’s 77% increase in profits and shareholder dividends than to the lives of vulnerable people?

[Mr Davey]

We do not; I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong on many counts. First, the structure she describes as a cartel was created by the previous Government. The big six were created during the consolidation under Labour, so they are Labour’s big six. It is under this coalition Government that we have seen a massive increase in the number of entrants to the market; we now have 20 independent suppliers taking on Labour’s big six. That is good competition that will help people. Secondly, we take winter deaths extremely seriously. If she looks at the data, she will see that winter deaths have gone up and down over a period of years and that the highest figure over the past decade was actually when the Leader of the Opposition was doing my job. The reason they go up and down is that they are related not simply to energy costs, but to health matters such as flu epidemics. We need to ensure that we have a cross-Government approach to tackling winter deaths, which is what we are doing.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for visiting Norwich recently to listen to my constituents about energy bills and for attacking the high profits made by suppliers on gas bills. Will he explain the analysis that led him to send a letter to Ofgem and the CMA concerning prices and profits in the supply of domestic gas?

[Mr Davey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his sterling work in this area. When Ofgem published segmental accounts in November, combined with figures on market share and other data, we saw for the first time a four-year time series showing some real concerns. It was that analysis that led me to write to the competition authorities, drawing their attention to the problems in the domestic gas supply market, which were never raised by the Labour party.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows that the big six were set up in the way they were because, after the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements and then the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements, that spread competition in the market. However, Which? has now said that vertical integration has skewed the market, penalised new entrants and impaired competition. Does he not accept that Which? is right and that the Opposition are absolutely right to seek to break up that vertical integration?

[Mr Davey]

I accept that we need to look at the electricity generating market. One of the reasons we support Ofgem’s proposals, which this week it was announced will go forward on 31 March, is that they will contest the vertical integration model for the first time. Again, it is this Government who are challenging the structures we inherited from the previous Government. We are allowing the competition authorities and regulators to take that contest forward, but the Labour party is saying that it must be against the consumer interest, yet it has no real evidence for that.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the high prices we see are not purely the result of the oligopoly set up by the previous Government, and that policy and energy mix are also important? To that extent, has he compared prices in Germany with those in the UK?

[Mr Davey]

There are a number of international comparisons on that basis, and the UK performs very well, by and large, particularly on post-tax analysis of domestic gas and electricity prices. But we should not be complacent; we should do everything we can to help customers and businesses with high energy bills.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

4. What steps he is taking to develop community energy.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

This year the coalition launched the UK’s first ever Government community energy strategy. That marks a profound step change for the energy sector and includes a series of ambitious new measures. To take that agenda forward, the Department is setting up a dedicated community energy delivery unit.

[Duncan Hames]

Those are wide-ranging plans that have been long in gestation. I am sure that the Minister is as keen as I am to take specific steps to help clean our energy supply and sustain local communities. What specific measures in the plan will enable local communities to take a lead in developing renewable energy in their area?

[Gregory Barker]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in campaigning for renewable energy. Let me assure him that there is a great deal of meat in the community energy strategy. We are establishing a £10 million urban community energy fund, providing seed funding for a one-stop-shop information resource, launching a £100,000 community energy saving competition, and setting up an industry-led taskforce to achieve greater shared ownership of onshore renewables. Altogether, it is a bold vision with a plan for delivery.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that a number of community-based combined heat and power schemes that were proceeding exactly on the basis set out in the strategy paper he mentioned have now collapsed thanks to the changes in the energy company obligation that his Department announced recently. Does he intend to take steps to use the resources he has mentioned, as set out in the community energy strategy, to help retrieve those schemes? If not, what message does he think will be sent on the future of the community energy strategy as a whole?

[Gregory Barker]

We certainly want to see more CHP, and we now have a dedicated resource in the Department supporting it. This comes back to the point I made earlier. Labour Members have to decide: are they going to stand up for endless subsidy or support us in driving down the cost of consumer bills? They cannot have it both ways.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

5. What steps he has taken to investigate the practice of energy companies having higher charges for non-direct debit customers.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

Energy companies are required under the terms of their licence to ensure that any differences in charges to consumers between different payment methods reflect only the differing costs to the supplier of that particular form of payment. Ofgem is looking at payment differentials, including higher charges for customers who choose not to pay by direct debit, in its competition assessment, which will be published this spring.

[Rehman Chishti]

About 1 million people do not have a bank account. What steps are the Government taking to help those who do not have a bank account and therefore find it impossible to pay by direct debit?

[Gregory Barker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. The coalition is absolutely committed to improving access to financial services for the vulnerable, particularly the fuel-poor. As recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, the Government are seeking a voluntary industry agreement on renewed minimum standards for basic bank accounts. In addition, we have committed nearly £2 million over this year to develop the big energy saving network to ensure that the most vulnerable are getting the best deals they can.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Is not the sluggishness of Ofgem in tackling this discrimination yet further evidence that it is no longer fit for purpose?

[Gregory Barker]

No, it is not. This is an ongoing situation. Ofgem has looked at the issue, but it is not something that one can look at once and then discard. That may be Labour’s approach, but we are maintaining long-term vigilance to make sure that the consumer is looked after on an ongoing basis, month in, month out. It is very important that they will now have the additional benefit of a referral to the competition test.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend look at some of the work of Ofgem, and how it allows price rises in the energy sector that are way above inflation whereas Ofwat takes a much tougher line as regards water customers?

[Gregory Barker]

I am aware of the comparison that my hon. Friend makes. However, the fact is that we have an extraordinary requirement for new investment thanks to the dearth of investment, and long-term investment, that we saw under 13 years of Labour. We are now playing catch-up. We require over £100 billion to go into our energy sector to secure our supplies, and I am afraid that that money has to come from somewhere.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the incidence of fuel poverty in rural off-gas grid areas; and what steps he is taking to tackle such fuel poverty.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

One in five of the fuel-poor does not have access to mains gas, and the majority of those households are in rural areas. We are determined to increase the delivery of energy efficiency improvements to the rural fuel-poor and to achieve far more for rural areas than previous schemes. We are actively taking forward a number of initiatives to deliver on that.

[Damian Hinds]

There are an estimated 10,000 off-grid homes in East Hampshire. I know that the Minister is personally committed to tackling rural fuel poverty where it appears, but what is being done on a practical basis, including on encouraging off-peak buying and ensuring that the code of practice is upheld?

[Gregory Barker]

I know this is an issue about which my hon. Friend feels particularly strongly, so I am happy to confirm to him that we are taking real steps. I will shortly be meeting the biggest seven energy suppliers to discuss improving the delivery of ECO measures, specifically to off-gas and rural homes. We are also consulting on increasing the number of rural low income homes eligible for ECO and incentivising the delivery of measures to off-gas grid, low income and vulnerable households. And—

[Mr Speaker]

It is always useful to have the abridged rather than the “War and Peace” version, but we are grateful to the Minister nevertheless.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

In many of the rural communities that are finding it so difficult because of fuel poverty, those who get the winter fuel payment would love to receive it earlier. Is the Minister prepared to meet a delegation of the all-party group on off-gas grid led by his hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) to discuss this matter?

[Gregory Barker]

This has been raised with me and I understand the work that the all-party parliamentary group is doing on it. I am sympathetic to the point that is made, but there are practical problems and costs to doing as the hon. Gentleman suggests. But I am not unsympathetic to him and, of course, I would be happy to meet.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Over half the people in this country who are in fuel poverty live in solid wall properties, and a significant number of those are people living off-grid in rural communities. Again, the changes announced to ECO in the autumn statement mean that no more than 25,000 solid wall insulation jobs a year will be done, whereas a few years ago 80,000 jobs a year were being done. If the Minister really intends to tackle fuel poverty in off-grid areas, how can he do so without an adequate solid wall insulation industry?

[Gregory Barker]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is scaremongering slightly about the solid wall insulation industry. The figures he referred to are the de minimis; they are not the maximum. There are other ways in which we will be installing solid wall insulation, not least working with our cash-back. I am surprised he did not mention the cash-back, as we are now offering up to £4,000 for solid wall insulation under the roll-out of the green deal. This has been very warmly welcomed by the industry, including the National Insulation Association, so perhaps he could join us in supporting the supply chain and talking up this market, rather than acting as a little bit of an Eeyore.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to promote investment in tidal energy.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The coalition Government recognise the huge potential for tidal energy in the UK, and have put unprecedented resource and effort into supporting the UK marine energy sector as a whole. This week in Belfast I chaired a meeting of the Marine Energy Programme Board, which regularly brings together all the major companies and entrepreneurs in this exciting sector in which the UK leads the world.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Given the regularity, the predictability and, as we have seen lately, the strength of the tides round these islands, is it not about time we had something like a national policy statement on tidal energy to get investment going in what could be a very important sector?

[Gregory Barker]

I fully share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for tidal technology. It has huge potential in UK waters and my hon. Friend is right, as usual. A national policy statement is the next logical step for the industry, once it can demonstrate that it can deploy at scale commercially and economically, ideally above 50 MW. I am determined to work closely with the sector to make that happen.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure that like me, the Minister would welcome a decision by the Scottish Government this week to grant £2 million to a tidal power global engineering hub in Edinburgh. Following the decisions about carbon capture and storage this week and earlier grants from DECC for wave energy in my constituency, does the Minister agree that the interests of the Scottish renewables industry are best served by the two Governments working together, with unlimited access to the UK-wide market, rather than any separation between the two countries?

[Gregory Barker]

Absolutely. Undoubtedly we are better together, and the fact that we are seeing increased co-operation between the UK marine energy park in Cornwall and the south-west and the Scottish marine energy park in the waters of the Pentland firth is a clear demonstration of how, together, we are much greater than the sum of our parts.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Following the Minister’s last reply, he will be aware that the UK is the global leader in wave energy, especially in relation to the wave park project off the north Cornwall coast. What can he say to ensure that we retain that position, bearing in mind that research and development in this field is measured in decades?

[Gregory Barker]

My hon. Friend is right. We are leading the global race in wave and tidal energy, and we are seeing increased inward investment into the UK by major international firms that want to be part of the development of the UK marine sector. The marine energy park in the south-west has a key part to play in that. I am delighted with the positive news about Wave Hub and the berths there, and we can look for more positive news as a result of the substantial resource that this Government have put into the sector.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress has been made in the roll-out of smart meters; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

Good progress is being made. The first technical specifications have been confirmed and some energy suppliers are installing smart meters already, although most consumers will be offered smart meters from next year. We are on track to complete the national roll-out to 30 million premises by 2020.

[Graham Stringer]

Since the original Mott MacDonald assessment of smart meters, their cost has doubled. It is also estimated that half the meters already installed will have to be removed before 2020. Are we not heading for another IT disaster?

[Michael Fallon]

Absolutely not. I am a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s criticism, given that his colleague the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) told this House on 23 April 2012 that our plan

“has a number of world-first features.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 782.]

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to support the city of Bristol in its role as European green capital 2015.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

I congratulate Bristol on being named European green capital 2015. Ministerial colleagues across Whitehall are working to explore what support we can provide to the city. The Minister for cities, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), will shortly be hosting a business round-table with the mayor of Bristol to discuss the role the Government can play.

[Charlotte Leslie]

Bristol is a hub of green technology and growth and thoroughly deserves its title. However, it is also a city that has very bad traffic congestion problems, leading to carbon emissions. Will the Minister lend his support—possibly working with other Departments —to make sure that the European green capital award provides the impetus for a railway revolution in Bristol and the Henbury loop line in my constituency?

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend is a powerful champion of the Henbury loop. It is for the West of England Partnership to identify that particular rail scheme as a priority in its strategic economic plan. If it does so, it may be considered for funding under the local growth fund.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

Energy bills are a real concern, so we are helping households with them in three ways: direct financial help, energy efficiency measures and increased competition. Direct financial help includes the warm home discount, the winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments. Energy efficiency measures are delivered in a variety of ways, but especially through the energy company obligation and the green deal. Our relentless focus on increasing competition ranges from Ofgem’s retail market review to our focus on new suppliers and making switching quicker and easier.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

In July 2012, off-grid fuel was selling for as low as 56p per litre, but by December the price was as much as 65p per litre, so a pensioner couple with an average 1,800-litre tank of oil in their garden could have saved £150 if they had bought in July. To put it another way: their winter fuel payment was half wiped out by December. Will the Secretary of State bring forward early payment of winter fuel payments for pensioners on off-grid energy?

[Mr Davey]

We have been working extremely hard and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) in particular has been leading the work to promote the “buy early” campaign so that consumers can buy oil when it is available at a lower price. Moreover, we have a six-monthly round-table with the industry to make sure we are doing everything we can.

The hon. Gentleman asked about winter fuel payments and he will know that they are a matter for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments on the fuel poverty strategy, and that issue and others will be dealt with as part of those discussions.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of rises in energy prices.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

Energy prices have been rising in the UK and many other European countries for nearly a decade, largely driven by the rise in global gas prices, itself driven by forces such as high economic growth in Asia and higher demand for gas in Japan post-Fukushima.

The other main causes of the rise in energy prices seen in the UK have been the need to fund the investments needed in new generation, including low carbon, and new transmission and distribution networks, as old power stations and networks need replacing. Although we cannot control price pressures from global markets, and although we have to make vital investments to keep the lights on, we are doing everything we can to help people and businesses struggling with this decade of energy price rises.

[Alison McGovern]

Further to the exchanges earlier in this sitting, I am still a little confused about the Government’s position. Will the Secretary of State support Labour’s plan to break the dominance of the big six and require them to sell into a pool, which could have a real effect on energy prices?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady is right to say that there are issues, because the previous Government created the big six. We have acted from day one to put pressure on them.

On the hon. Lady’s last point about selling into a pool, let me explain the Labour party’s policy, because it is already out of date. Because of measures that we and Ofgem have taken, next-day trading has increased dramatically to more than 50% of electricity. That is equivalent to a pool. From talking to independent generators competing with the big six, we know that they are not interested in increasing that more; they are interested in forward markets, because that provides greater liquidity to enable them to compete. That is what Ofgem announced this week. I am afraid that Labour, as always, is completely behind the curve.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

On reducing energy prices further, Ofgem estimates that about £1 billion could be saved by reducing peak energy. What sort of strategies of demand-side response are the Government looking at?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue, because there are some really cost-effective and good wins to be had. That is why we introduced the electricity demand reduction strategy in the Energy Act 2013. We will have a pilot—we expect it to go forward later this year—which will be the first ever electricity demand reduction project in this country.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

12. What support his Department is giving to off-grid homes to reduce their fuel bills.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

This winter’s “Buy oil early” campaign, co-ordinated by my Department, was launched by the industry in September. We have worked with industry to provide consumer guidance on how to form oil buying clubs, which allow savings through bulk buying. I will review its progress at the next ministerial round table in May. The launch of the domestic renewable heat incentive this spring will also provide payments to promote a switch to renewable forms of home heating.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend says. As several colleagues have already mentioned this morning, the cost of heating oil for off-grid homes is a major concern. Will he give us more details of the domestic renewable heat incentive scheme, particularly in respect of domestic biomass boilers?

[Michael Fallon]

The domestic renewable heat incentive scheme is designed to drive forward the uptake of renewable heat technologies, such as biomass boilers. We published details of that scheme last July, and we intend it to be open for applications this spring. It is targeted at, but not limited to, homes that are off the gas grid, because those without mains gas have the most potential to save on fuel bills and to decrease their carbon emissions.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Surely one of the biggest problems for off-grid homes is that they are not even entitled to the protection of the fairly weak regulator, Ofgem. Regardless of who created what, will the Minister please tell us why oil customers are not entitled to this most basic of regulatory protections?

[Michael Fallon]

The new code that we have agreed with the industry gives those customers more protection than they have had in the past. We are looking at the operation of the code this winter, and we will review how effective it has been when we hold the next ministerial round table in May.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to ensure that energy suppliers check the accuracy of meters.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

Energy suppliers are required to investigate if a customer suspects that their energy meter is not recording consumption accurately. Under Ofgem’s standards of conduct, that must be carried out in an honest, transparent and professional manner. If necessary, a consumer can request that the meter be independently tested by a meter examiner appointed by the National Measurement Office.

[Martin Vickers]

What the Minister has outlined does not appear to have happened in the case of a customer working in my constituency to whom npower recently agreed to give a rebate of £2,548. He is a professional man who is well able to go through the time-consuming process and to afford the £96 fee he had to pay, but the process would have been a challenge for a more vulnerable customer. To add insult to injury, three months after the rebate was agreed, he still has not received his refund. What can be done to improve this unacceptable situation?

[Michael Fallon]

That is a quite unacceptable delay. Any charge should be reimbursed if the meter is found to have been inaccurate. I will take up the matter with the company and it needs to resolve it rapidly.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of climate change on the frequency of extreme weather events.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

The science is clear: we are already seeing some effects of man-made climate change and the future threat from climate change is great, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed in the House yesterday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its fifth assessment last September, which covered the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events. It stated:

“Extreme precipitation events over most of the mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions will very likely become more intense and more frequent by the end of this century”.

It also stated:

“It is very likely that heat waves will occur with a higher frequency and duration.”

With respect to recent events, the UK Met Office’s chief scientist said that

“all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change”.

[Mike Thornton]

I welcome that response. It seems that extreme weather events are increasingly becoming the norm. Tomorrow, I am hosting a Green Alliance event in Eastleigh to discuss with local businesses, community groups and service providers how climate change will affect our area. Does the Secretary of State agree that such inclusive local approaches are as vital as international agreement?

[Mr Davey]

I do agree with that. My hon. Friend and Eastleigh borough council are leaders in the bottom-up approach. He will know that there are two areas that we need to tackle. First, local communities and individuals must reduce their carbon emissions to stop climate change getting worse. Secondly, communities must work together to make people’s homes and communities much more resilient to the climate change that has already happened.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

21. Many of us have welcomed the Prime Minister’s acknowledgement yesterday that climate change is one of the greatest threats that we face. Will the Government follow through on the logic of that position, and will the Secretary of State now rule out categorically any weakening of the fourth carbon budget?

[Mr Davey]

The fourth carbon budget review is under way. I will not prejudge that, and the hon. Lady should not expect me to do so. I will say that this Government are leading the international climate change debate in Europe. The 2030 energy and climate change targets, which will be discussed at the European Council in March, are critical in tackling climate change. She will know that we have to work internationally to do that. This Government and the UK have been leading that debate.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Secretary of State and his wife, Emily, on the birth of their daughter? I commend him for taking paternity leave, although I know only too well that he will never have been far from the duties of his office.

The Secretary of State has criticised his Conservative coalition partners for undermining the consensus on climate change. Given that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that people should

“just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries”

and that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) said that he has

“not had time to get into the…climate change debate”,

will the Secretary of State tell us whether it was them that he had in mind? Are his comments not a bit rich, given that he voted against setting a decarbonisation target?

[Mr Davey]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her warm comments about the birth of our daughter. May I report to the House that mother and baby are doing well? It is nice to come back to Parliament for a rest.

When I made those comments, I was not talking about my ministerial colleagues; I was talking about some voices on the Conservative Benches, particularly in the other place, who question the science of climate change, and I think that is very unhelpful. The right hon. Lady talks about a decarbonisation target, but it was this Government who brought forward legislation on a decarbonisation target. The Labour party did not have one in its manifesto and neither did the Green party. We took the policy forward and it is in the Energy Act 2013.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

15. What steps he has taken to increase competition in the energy market.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

19. What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

We have taken a large number of steps to increase competition in the energy market after the consolidation under the last Government that created the big six. We have deregulated the market to encourage the entry of smaller suppliers and more than 20 independents are now competing with the big six on retail energy. We have supported Ofgem in its reforms of bills and tariffs to make them easier and simpler, including through the ending of so-called dead tariffs. We have also supported Ofgem’s reform of the wholesale electricity market which, as has been confirmed this week, will be introduced on 31 March this year. We are also making it easier and quicker to switch.

[Bob Blackman]

On privatisation, some 27 companies were involved in the generation, supply and distribution of electricity, and of course gas. The market was set up to allow new entrants, but under Labour it shrunk to the big six. What action will my right hon. Friend take to allow new entrants to all three aspects of the market?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is right that we saw consolidation in the energy market under the previous Government, which is when the big six were created. We have acted since day one through deregulation, which has enabled more independent suppliers to come to the market, and through making it easier to switch to the simpler and easier tariffs and bills that Ofgem has promoted. This week’s announcement in the wholesale market will see much greater transparency in forward markets, which will reduce barriers to entry to take on the electricity generation side of the big six.

[Mr Speaker]

Thomas Docherty: not here. I do not know what is going on; the fellow was here earlier and he has now beetled out of the Chamber. How very unfortunate. I call Tessa Munt.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Given the complaints figures uncovered by Which? recently, which showed that the big six received more than 5.5 million complaints in 2013 alone, does the Secretary of State think the time has come to have a full overhaul of the broken energy market, starting with a full competition inquiry to increase competition after the market assessment has been completed?

[Mr Davey]

It would be wrong of me to anticipate what the annual competition assessment will conclude. We provided evidence for that, which was the right thing to do, but it is for that independent competition authority to decide what the problem is—that is why we have asked it to do it. It is doing detailed work, and when it has analysed the problem, it will decide what remedies are required.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State asserted in answer to an oral question on 16 January that Labour’s proposals to introduce a ring fence between generation and supply would cause “real problems” and push up prices. The Procedure Committee has ruled that the Secretary of State should provide me with evidence for that claim by 26 February, which was yesterday. Can he tell me today what the evidence says and whether he will publish it?

[Mr Davey]

First, the annual competition assessment will, of course, look at that issue in detail. As the right hon. Lady will know if she has read the details of Ofgem’s wholesale market reforms, for example, there is a lot of work to suggest that it is not at all clear that vertical integration is bad for consumers; it may be in some cases, but it will not be in others. The theory behind this is pretty clear: vertical integration was adopted so that people could hedge the risks between generation and supply. That can lower the cost of capital and lower prices for consumers.

[Caroline Flint]

The Secretary of State has asserted his own view in the House and in the media before Ofgem has even made its assessment, so I think my question stands. Even Government Members think that the Secretary of State is wrong. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) wrote on “ConservativeHome” on 18 February that if companies had separate licences for generation and supply, as Labour has proposed, it would

“shine a light in some of the murky areas”

of the energy market. Apart from some of the big six, can the Secretary of State name a single organisation that opposes a ring fence, and will he confirm that he is ruling out the introduction of a ring fence while he is Secretary of State?

[Mr Davey]

No, I will not do that for the simple reason that we have asked the independent competition authorities to look at the evidence. Unlike the right hon. Lady, I am not prejudging the outcome of independent competition regulators. We provide the evidence and we allow independent authorities to make judgments on that. It is quite odd that the Labour party is now turning its back on independent competition authorities.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

Since Energy questions in January we have published Britain’s first ever community energy strategy, which is widely welcomed by the sector. This week we published a review by Sir Ian Wood into our oil industry. I have accepted Sir Ian’s recommendations, and we intend to fast-track his proposals. I am grateful to Sir Ian and his team for their work, which we believe is a game-changer in the management of our offshore oil and gas assets. Finally, we announced a second carbon capture and storage project this week—the world’s first ever commercial-scale gas CCS project—and CCS will play a key part in our decarbonisation strategy.

[Mr Weir]

The CCS project is indeed most welcome; it is a pity it did not get here some years ago. The Secretary of State mentioned the fuel poverty strategy currently under preparation. I appreciate that the winter fuel allowance is for the Department for Work and Pensions, but given the impact it could have on pensioners in rural areas will he press for action to be taken to allow the early payment of the winter fuel allowance?

[Mr Davey]

I say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the previous questioner who raised this. We are looking at all these matters and we are working across Government—with the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Treasury and the Department of Health—on our fuel strategy, because it touches on all areas of government: benefits, health services, flu jabs and a whole range of issues that need to be looked at. I am not going to prejudge the publication of that strategy.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

T3. The Secretary of State stated in the Yorkshire Post on 14 February that he expects Eggborough power station to remain open, even if it does not obtain his support for converting from coal to biomass. Will he explain his Department’s detailed analysis, specific to Eggborough, that leads to that conclusion? I appreciate he might not be able to do that in the time allowed here, so will he—not just his officials—meet me and representatives from Eggborough to discuss that detailed analysis as a matter of urgency?

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

My hon. Friend is a consistent champion of Eggborough and its proposed conversion. He will know that I have already met him and representatives from the company to discuss the proposal for converting to biomass. We received a large number of investment projects under the intermediate regime. It was not possible, because of a limited budget, to support them all through the taxpayer, but he will know that Eggborough has a number of other options and routes to consider.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the matter of Eggborough has been raised. The loss of 850 jobs at Eggborough, with thousands more in the supply chain, is very worrying. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that his Government’s policies create jobs, not cost jobs, and safeguard, rather than threaten, our energy security?

[Michael Fallon]

The jobs have not yet been lost at Eggborough, which is still producing power. A large number of investment projects came forward under our intermediate regimes involving hundreds of other jobs. It was not possible, within a limited budget, to accommodate every single investment project. Eggborough has been given its provisional ranking and it has other alternatives, such as applying for a contract for difference under the enduring regime.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

T5. The Minister will recall visiting my constituency a couple of years ago to look at a green deal project to make houses on the Lakes estate more energy efficient. Will he update me on how many families were able to benefit from the scheme?

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

I cannot give my hon. Friend the figure off the top of my head, but what I saw in his constituency, and what he has championed, is at the forefront of what we want to see: energy efficiency measures that genuinely improve not just the fabric of the building but the community, living standards and the comfort of people there—as well as driving down energy bills.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

T2. The Minister of State previously showed faux concern for communities that are off gas grid. Is not the implication of the Government’s energy policy that many, many more communities will be without gas supply if gas supplies are switched off when the energy industry is electrified? When will he tell those communities that they will no longer be able to have gas?

[Mr Davey]

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. The idea that the Department has taken the decision to mandate the end of the gas network is simply not true.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T6. Later this morning I will take part in a meeting to assess the progress and way forward on implementation of carbon capture and storage. Alstom, from my constituency, will be taking part. Will my right hon. Friend please update the House on how the UK is leading the world in carbon capture and storage technologies?

[Mr Davey]

Yes. The UK is extremely well placed to take forward critical low carbon technology. We have all the experience from the oil and gas offshore industry in the North sea. The North sea has some of the largest reserves of carbon dioxide in Europe, and our universities and companies have some of the greatest engineers and scientists who are able to take forward this incredibly low carbon opportunity for the world.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

T4. The poorest consumers are among those who use prepayment meters. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that they are not charged more than other customers?

[Gregory Barker]

We take this issue very seriously. We want to ensure that every payment method reflects the cost fairly, and that there is no gaming between the different methods. The issue will form part of our competition test, and we are also working on it closely with Ofgem.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

T7. CNG is a north Yorkshire success story, serving gas customers, small businesses and small corporations, but it is anxious about entering the domestic market because of the burden of regulation, compliance costs and risk costs. Can we do any more to encourage companies such as CNG to enter the domestic gas market?

[Mr Davey]

I am interested to hear about the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency. If he writes to me giving the details, we shall be able to look into the issue. He may also wish to send those details to the independent authorities which are conducting the competition assessment. We have deregulated the energy markets to reduce barriers to entry to the market, but we want to do more.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the launch today of the fourth GLOBE international climate legislation study, which shows how many more national Governments are taking urgent action to deal with climate change? Given the importance of the climate change debate, will he return to the issue of the review of the fourth carbon budget? Will he recognise that if the United Kingdom and Europe want to continue to take a leading role in climate change negotiations, it makes no sense to have that review now?

[Mr Davey]

I do welcome the publication of the climate legislation study. The United Kingdom, including many parliamentarians throughout the House, has played a leading role in encouraging other countries to enact climate change legislation, and it is encouraging to see how many have responded. I pay tribute to the Members involved, particularly the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner).

I cannot add anything to the answer I gave earlier about the fourth carbon budget review, which is currently under way. When we published the fourth carbon budget, it was decided that a review would take place at this time, and I cannot prejudice its outcome.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T8. How quickly will my right hon. Friend act on the important findings of the Wood review?

[Mr Davey]

We have already set up an implementation group in the Department, because Sir Ian Wood published an interim report and we were able to study it and make preparations. I asked Sir Ian to chair an interim advisory panel to help us with our work, and he has agreed to do so. We are also keen to introduce legislation during the next Session of Parliament to implement his ideas about new powers for the proposed new regulator.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State will recall, I told the House back in November 2013 that the npower call centre in Thornaby was placing 500 jobs in jeopardy through its proposal to close the centre and relocate on its existing Sunderland site. We now know that more than 400 members of staff have opted for voluntary redundancy because npower’s promises of a relocation package and transport have not come to fruition. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills with a view to mitigating the problems of the Thornaby workers?

[Mr Davey]

I know that BIS considers such issues very seriously, and we discuss them a great deal across Government. We want to ensure that support is provided in the event of large-scale redundancies, whether voluntary or compulsory. I cannot say any more about the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I will ask my officials to look into it.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

Many communities in my constituency will be interested in the community energy initiative. How can they find out more in order to promote their local generating ideas?

[Gregory Barker]

Our Community Energy online guide is a great starter tool, opening up the world of exciting community energy projects which are increasing daily under this coalition Government.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The German Chancellor is visiting Parliament today. May I invite the Secretary of State to hold talks with her about the support that her Government give to energy-intensive industries in Germany? I am sure that that support is welcomed by those industries, but it makes it increasingly difficult for energy-intensive industries in our country, such as the steel industry, to compete.

[Michael Fallon]

We are already paying emission trading system compensation—some £28 million so far—to 53 companies, including eight steel companies, nine chemical companies and 28 paper companies. I discussed a carbon price floor compensation scheme with Vice-President Almunia in Brussels last week, and I hope that that too will be approved next month.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I recently met 90-year-old Norah at the Phoenix centre in Holmfirth to learn about the energy bill revolution. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that one of the best ways of reducing energy bills for those facing fuel poverty is to insulate their homes?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree completely that energy efficiency measures are one of the best ways of providing long-term sustainable support to the fuel-poor. I completely understand and appreciate the motives behind the energy bill revolution, although hypothecation itself may not always be the most effective way of managing public expenditure.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the new fuel poverty target will address the specific needs of people affected by severe and devastating rare conditions such as muscular dystrophy and neuromuscular conditions?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the question, and that is one of the reasons why, in developing the fuel poverty strategy, we are working across Government. She is right to say some health conditions may require people to be at home for longer, and they may not be of pensionable age and getting the winter fuel allowance. I hope we can look at that issue during the finalisation of the fuel poverty strategy.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

With Angela Merkel’s forthcoming speech to both Houses of Parliament in mind, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be very wise and sensible to incorporate energy more thoroughly into the single market, and what steps is he taking to bring that about?

[Michael Fallon]

I discussed these issues with the German Government in Berlin yesterday and I agree with my hon. Friend that completing the internal market, with more interconnection and work on network codes and sharing, is part of the answer to making Europe more self-sufficient in its own energy and in reducing our dependence on fluctuating wholesale costs.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and, indeed, also in The Mail on Sunday. The Secretary of State was good enough to welcome the GLOBE conference today in Washington and the fourth legislative study. Will he also welcome the forest legislators initiative that is going alongside that, which is looking into REDD-plus and the expansion of that work in Latin America and Africa in particular?

[Mr Davey]

First, may I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he does on forestry and the contribution he has made? I am not aware of the details of the legislative initiative he mentions, but it does sound very sensible. This Government have done a huge amount to support efforts to tackle deforestation in Latin America and elsewhere and I will certainly take note of what he said.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Under the current business rates arrangements, businesses have very little incentive to increase energy efficiency as investing in premises can lead to higher business rates. Did the Secretary of State see last week’s British Retail Consortium proposals for modernising business rates, suggesting a scheme whereby energy efficiency and improvements are rewarded with lower business rates, rather than penalised? Will he discuss these proposals with his colleagues in government?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I did note those proposals and I thought they were very interesting. It would be unwise of me to prejudge the work that will be done on them in other Departments, including the Treasury, but the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), has a meeting later today to discuss the proposals with business representatives.

Business of the House

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

10:33

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 3 March—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on managing flood risk, followed by a debate on Government levies on energy bills. Further details will be given in the Official Report.

[The details are as follows: Third Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on Managing Flood Risk, HC 330, and the Government response, HC 706; Eighth Report from the Energy and Climate Change Committee, on the Levy Control Framework: Parliamentary oversight of the Government levies on energy bills, HC 872.]

Tuesday 4 March—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on defence and cyber-security, followed by a debate on the private rented sector. Further details will be given in the Official Report.

[The details are as follows: Sixth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2012-13, on Defence and Cyber-Security, HC 106, and the Government response, HC 719; First Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, on the Private Rented Sector, HC 50, and the Government response, Cm 8730.]

At 7pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Wednesday 5 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipations and Adjustments) Bill, followed by a general debate on the Francis report: one year on.

Thursday 6 March—Statement on the publication of the ninth report from the Defence Committee on Future Army 2020, followed by debate on a motion relating to the security situation of women in Afghanistan, followed by a general debate on Welsh affairs. The Select Committee statement and the subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 10 March will include:

Monday 10 March—Remaining stages of the Care Bill [Lords] (Day 1).

Tuesday 11 March—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Care Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 12 March—Remaining stages of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 13 March—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 14 March—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 6 and 10 March will be:

Thursday 6 March—A general debate on the contribution of women to the economy.

Monday 10 March—A general debate on an e-petition relating to stopping female genital mutilation in the UK.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. We have all been watching the dramatic scenes unfolding in Ukraine and, as the new Cabinet is installed in Kiev ahead of May’s presidential elections, there are worrying reports of Russian troop movements on the border and ongoing signs of volatility, not least in Crimea. Will the Leader of the House give us his assurance that the House will be kept up to date with the situation as it unfolds over the coming weeks?

Next week, we will discuss estimates and focus on the particular issues chosen by the Liaison Committee. Does the Leader of the House agree that the process for dealing with estimates is arcane, obtuse and in need of reform? Will he support my call for new forms of effective financial scrutiny for the House?

Next Saturday is international women’s day. Will the Leader of the House tell us how he plans to mark the occasion? Judging by the Government’s record at the moment, I do not think we can expect too much. We have had the notorious all-male Front Bench, and we have learned that the Tory manifesto will be written by five men who went to Eton and another man who went to St Paul’s. And the Defence Secretary is unable to tell the difference between two women in the shadow Cabinet—and it was not me and my sister.

I am sure that everyone will wish to welcome the German Chancellor’s visit to Parliament today. She is certainly getting better treatment than the French President did; he was taken to a pub near the airstrip. There are many on the Tory Back Benches who will be especially interested in what the German Chancellor will say on the question of Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Given that the Leader of the House is a front-runner in the betting relating to the EU commissioner role that is about to become vacant, I am sure that he will take his own special interest too.

Last year, the Prime Minister was forced by his Eurosceptic Back Benchers to announce that he was going to hold an in/out referendum in 2017. Last month, however, the French President dismissed that arbitrary timetable for reforming Europe, telling us that treaty change was “not urgent” and “not a priority”. On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary had to admit that no negotiations were currently under way on an EU treaty. Is it not the reality that the Prime Minister is powerless to make good on his grand, impossible promises to the growing band of Eurosceptics in his own party?

This week, Conservative central office launched an outlandish rebranding exercise, as the chairman of the party attempted to claim that it was now “the workers’ party”. So it is out with the huskies and the hoodies and in with the Bullingdon Bolsheviks. They have claimed to be the most family-friendly Government ever. They have also claimed to be the greenest Government ever and the most transparent Government ever, but their claim to be the workers’ party has to be the most laughable yet. Real wages are down by an average of £1,600 a year, record numbers of people are working fewer hours than they would like, millionaire hedge-fund donors are busy writing policies to slash rights at work and the Work and Pensions Secretary spent the hours before this latest rebrand defending zero-hours contracts. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on this latest Conservative mis-selling scandal?

The National Audit Office has this morning published a report on the Government’s supposed reorganisation of disability benefits. The report finds that the new personal independence payments will cost three and a half times as much to administer and double the amount of time to process as the disability living allowance.

This Government’s incompetence is causing real hurt and distress to disabled people. This week we learned that the Department for Work and Pensions has stopped employment and support allowance reassessments because it cannot cope with the volume, and it did not even have the guts to announce it to the House. The disastrous introduction of universal credit stumbles from bad to worse. Today, the Work and Pensions Secretary is trying to justify, in a written ministerial statement, why we are set to have 400,000 more children in poverty by the next election. After the criticisms made by dozens of bishops last week, it seems that even divine intervention cannot prevent the incompetence at the DWP. Will the Leader of the House give us a debate, in Government time, on the growing chaos at the Department?

The Government tell us that they have increased flood defence spending when the national statisticians say they have not. They have an Environment Secretary who does not believe in climate change and a Deputy Prime Minister who thinks that he has a right to be in Government for ever. I think this Government might be living in a parallel universe.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her words. I entirely agree with her first point. This House has viewed the events in Ukraine with a degree of shock. None the less, it must be for the people of Ukraine to determine their future, and to do so, hopefully, in a democratic and peaceful way. Everyone else must give what support they can and should, while fully respecting the territorial integrity of the country. The Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House on Monday, and he will continue to update the House as and when necessary.

On the issue of financial scrutiny, while estimates days give us an opportunity to debate issues of importance that the Liaison Committee has identified from the estimates to be debated, this is less about the structure of estimates days and more about the work of Select Committees. As a former member of the Health Committee, I recall that there was, and there continues to be, an annual inquiry by the Select Committee into the expenditure of its Department. I do not know whether that is replicated elsewhere. As the hon. Lady will know from the work being done by the Public Accounts Commission, the future strategy of the National Audit Office prioritises the availability of its support to Select Committees to undertake work relating to the expenditure of Departments. As I have made clear at this Dispatch Box, we in the Government welcome that financial scrutiny, as we continue to strive to deliver the greatest possible effectiveness from public expenditure.

I look forward to international women’s day at the end of next week and its theme of inspiring change. As I announced in the business statement, the House will have opportunities to debate a range of issues of importance to women and to all of us, and I look forward to taking part and listening to those debates and to celebrating the role of women not only in inspiring change but in leading in the economy. We have more women in employment than ever before and more women establishing jobs. Like the Prime Minister, I particularly value women who set up businesses and are entrepreneurs and create jobs in our economy.

Talking of enterprising and impressive women, we very much welcome Chancellor Merkel here to Parliament later this morning. I look forward to hearing her speak to the two Houses of Parliament, especially about how our two countries together are working in partnership to deliver a more complete single market, greater competition and more free trade across the world. Those are things that we all value, and that are absolutely necessary not only to us but to the eurozone countries and the European Union as a whole.

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it perfectly clear that, following the review of the balance of competences, it is the Prime Minister who, as leader of a party, will be setting out what he is seeking to achieve through the process of renegotiation leading to a referendum in this country. That is something for him to do as leader of the party and as current Prime Minister, but not on behalf of the Government, as neither the renegotiation nor the referendum are the policy of the coalition Government as a whole; they are the policy of the Conservative party and will be presented in that context.

The idea of the Conservative party as the party for workers in this country is not new—it is important but it is not new; I recall that in 1987 more trade unionists voted for the Conservative party than voted for the Labour party. I suspect that this week, at the end of which the Labour party will get together with the trade union bosses, many trade union members and many workers in this country who are not trade unionists will recognise that the Conservative party has their interests at heart. It is a party that is cutting their taxes, creating jobs and giving them a sense of security for the future. That is very important, because it is the Labour party that is in denial about all this. It is in denial about the deficit; the shadow Chancellor, in particular, simply will not accept that the Labour Government got anything wrong before the last election. I have to say in all kindness to the Labour party that we learnt painfully that if you do not understand why you lost, you stand no chance of winning.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As we look forward to international women’s day on Saturday, may we have a debate on encouraging more women into chemistry, given that two leaders of the free world have previously been research chemists—the late, great Baroness Thatcher and, of course, our guest today in Parliament, Chancellor Angela Merkel?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am always in awe of those who are very good at chemistry, having achieved what in those days was described as a grade 9 in O-level chemistry. Fortunately, the Secretary of State for Education is planning for a grade 9 in O-levels to represent success, but in my case it was abject failure and so I am in awe of those who have abilities in chemistry. Those who excel in chemistry often have exactly the kind of analytical intellect that enables them to succeed in many other walks of life.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Since the privatisation of the railway industry there has been an explosion of capital works costs, both in track renewals and maintenance. Debt in the industry is reaching crisis proportions, and as and when interest rates begin to rise that crisis will surely be precipitated. May we have a full and urgent debate on the finances of the railway industry?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot offer an immediate debate, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the House has often recently had occasion to ask questions about the rail industry and, in particular, to note the scale of the Network Rail investment in prospect. We are talking about a £38 billion investment, which is the largest rail investment in this country since the Victorian era. It is not just about High Speed 2—that is not even the largest part of it; there are schemes across the whole country, in response to the fact that the number of passengers on the railways has more than doubled since privatisation.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Bombardier’s recent contract award for Crossrail will employ 30 graduates and take on 80 apprentices from around the Derby area. With next week being national apprenticeship week and with youth unemployment falling, will the Leader of the House facilitate a debate on what further steps this Government are taking to tackle youth unemployment?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, as she is absolutely right. There is some extremely good news in her constituency and neighbouring constituencies, and I am glad she is in a position to highlight that in the House. We are never going to be complacent about the number of young people who are not entering employment. That is why we are putting so much effort into apprenticeships, with 1.6 million apprenticeships planned during this Parliament, which is a significant increase. That will make a very big difference to young people in accessing the jobs that are coming through. Encouragingly, at the same time as we have record numbers of people in employment, we also have record numbers of vacancies, so people can be very optimistic about their prospects.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Council tax rises are one factor in the cost of living crisis, so may we have a debate on how the coalition’s funding distribution is giving the biggest cuts to the most disadvantaged communities and is deliberately calculated so that no matter what efficiencies are found by councils such as Hull’s, they are still having to increase council taxes and cut local services too?

[Mr Lansley]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady should raise that issue because at the moment councils across the country are taking difficult decisions while demonstrating that they can sustain, and in some cases improve, the public’s experience of local government services at the same time as they freeze the council tax. This complaint about council tax rises comes from a party which when in government saw council tax double, as I know from my own constituency. Under this Government, the resources being provided and the incentives to freeze council tax mean that hard-pressed home owners and those paying council tax are finding that their local government services are not costing them a great deal more, as they did in the past.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I do not like to be critical of the Government, but we have a lot of statements about things that have either gone wrong or allegedly gone wrong, and we do not have enough statements about all the very good things that are going right. This coalition Government are doing a fantastic job, many things are going right in the economy, and those on the Front Bench should do far more to boost this country and to put the optimistic case forward.

[Mr Lansley]

I accept my hon. Friend’s chastisement. I will encourage my colleagues to make more statements of the character that he describes, but I point him towards the Budget statement on 19 March, which I know will be an opportunity to present to the House many of the things that he and I recognise, and the House should recognise, have been a success under this coalition Government.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Minister to make a statement on the long-term future of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and, in particular, on whether there is any intention to extend its remit into other sectors, such as construction?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course discuss that matter with my hon. Friends. I do not know whether there is any plan of the kind that the hon. Gentleman describes. However, I will discuss the matter with them and see if they can not only reply to him but inform the House, as he requests.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

May we have a debate on recent reports by Global Witness about Congolese conflict gold being traded through Dubai and then into Switzerland, where it goes into the European supply chain? Will the Leader of the House speak to his colleagues in the Government to ensure that the UK supply chains are robust and not vulnerable to conflict gold?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I will of course have that conversation with my hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because we always want to do whatever we possibly can to prevent such resources—conflict gold, conflict diamonds and the exploitation of mineral wealth—from feeding conflicts that are doing such immense harm to the people of those countries from which those resources come.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Recently I received an answer from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the number of overseas territory students studying in the United Kingdom. The answer refers to “the Falklands (Malvinas).” Can we have a statement from the Government as to whether or not there is a change of policy towards Britain’s overseas territory?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman, I mean. I spend so much time talking to him that it just seems like he is an hon. Friend.

I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware there is no change in the Government’s position where this matter is concerned. It is the Falklands, it continues to be the Falklands and its constitutional status will remain the same.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the proper role of Governments and shareholders in the setting of pay and bonuses in the private sector? We seem to be in a ridiculous situation where the Government want to lecture profitable companies in which they have no shareholding about their pay and bonuses, and yet they equally appear to be sitting idly by and allowing a company in which they are a majority shareholder to pay more than £500 million of bonuses, despite the fact that the company is costing the taxpayer more than £8 billion a year?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, talk to my hon. Friends at the Business, Innovation and Skills Department. However, I have to say to my hon. Friend that I do not think we are lecturing companies. We are being clear about what we regard as social responsibility, and that companies have a responsibility that extends not only to their shareholders and employees but to the wider society. All companies should recognise that. Where the Government have a substantial shareholding in a company, of course we should use that shareholding similarly—in a socially responsible way. We are aiming for, and have seen, a substantial reduction in bonuses in the banking sector, which I know is occurring in those companies in which the Government have a shareholding.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

May we have a statement from the Health Secretary about the possibility of improving outcomes for pancreatic cancer patients through Abraxane?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary whether there is any opportunity to update the House. A diagnosis of pancreatic cancer continues to be very serious. The hon. Gentleman knows that survival rates for pancreatic cancer are very low in comparison with those for many other cancers, on which we have made considerable progress. In the Cancer Research UK laboratories in my constituency, I have seen the work being done on potential routes to the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer, but it is early days and I fear that the number of projects with good lines of inquiry are still few.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

The shadow Leader of the House says that we should have a debate on which is the workers’ party. I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House: bring it on. Perhaps we can examine the record of the Labour Government, who drowned the country in debt, left 2.5 million people unemployed, and abolished the 10p tax rate, and compare it with the record of this Government, who cut taxes for 20 million lower earners, increased apprenticeships by 1.5 million, and extended the right to buy.

[Mr Lansley]

The workers in Harlow know who represents them.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

May I ask our proletarian comrade, the Leader of the House of Commons, whether, in his new capacity as a workers’ leader, he will arrange for portraits of the Tolpuddle martyrs to be displayed prominently in the House of Commons? Is it true that Tory central office is saying that those trade unionists, who were punished and deported to Australia, were leading officials of their local Conservative association?

[Mr Lansley]

I hesitate to get into a debate with the hon. Gentleman on these issues. I certainly know that, during the 19th century, there were many reasons why people were appreciative of a Tory Administration who brought in protection for workers through the Factories Acts and the like. In any case, his question about portraits is probably a matter for the Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art, rather than the Leader of the House.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that on Tuesday evening, the House finishes its business promptly at 7 o’clock, so that we can all get home, finish our pancakes, and have an early night, as on Wednesday, the first day of Lent, at 7.45 am, the Archbishop of Canterbury is celebrating Holy Communion in the Undercroft chapel? Everyone working in the Palace of Westminster is very welcome to attend.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am sure that the House appreciates the opportunity to go to the Ash Wednesday service that he advertises. I think that there is nothing on the Order Paper at the moment that would require us to extend our proceedings beyond the moment of interruption at 7 o’clock on Tuesday.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I am disappointed that I have not received a response to my question to the Leader of the House of two weeks ago about the European solidarity fund. In the meantime, may we have an urgent debate on what “Money is no object” means, and whether it could apply to those waiting for personal independence payment assessments?

[Mr Lansley]

I endeavour to secure replies for hon. Members, but not inevitably within a fortnight; sometimes it takes a bit longer. I will endeavour to get a full reply to the hon. Lady.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I speak as a genuine working-class Conservative. [Interruption.] My local health authority is making a real mess of the reorganisation of health provision in my constituency, so could we have a debate on health provision across South Gloucestershire, especially in relation to Frenchay hospital, my local hospital?

[Mr Speaker]

Hon. Members should not be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman. I have known him for more than 20 years, and I can testify, from personal knowledge, that he was a distinguished ice-cream salesman in Bristol.

[Mr Lansley]

Thank you for that, Mr Speaker.

I will, of course, ask my colleagues in the Department of Health to respond directly to my hon. Friend. I know from personal experience how long and difficult the issues surrounding the reconfiguration of services have been following the developments at Southmead and the reduction of services at Frenchay. He has taken a considerable interest in these issues for several years, and rightly so, and I shall encourage my colleagues to respond to him.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

May we have an early debate about accident and emergency closures? The Leader of the House has a nice flat constituency, whereas I have a hilly one, and threats of the closure of the Halifax and Huddersfield A and E departments are serious for an area such as ours. May we have a debate about the importance of high-quality care, not of saving £50 million?

[Mr Lansley]

My constituency is fortunate in that it contains Addenbrooke’s hospital, with its fine accident and emergency department, but in the past year or so, the Government have invested additional resources to support A and E departments. Sir Bruce Keogh’s review for NHS England on the configuration of future accident and emergency services is not about cuts, but about improving services and ensuring that people are able to get the service they need, including specialised services, at the right place and the right time.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

In July 2012, Sir John Holmes carried out an independent review of the national defence medal for the Cabinet Office. Since then, my constituent, Tony Morland, has been waiting patiently for the outcome. Will the Leader of the House make time for a Defence Minister to report to the House on progress so that Mr Morland will stop e-mailing me?

[Mr Lansley]

The Government, like my hon. Friend, recognise the great sacrifices made by all members of the armed services past and present. He referred to Sir John Holmes, whom the Prime Minister appointed to carry out a review of the rules and principles governing the award of military campaign medals. The first recommendations on recognition were for those serving on the Atlantic convoys, in Bomber Command and during the Yangtze incident, which were announced by the Prime Minister on 19 December 2012. Sir John continues to work on further campaigns and the broader policy behind the five-year and the double medalling rules.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the role of the banks in our communities? Santander has announced that it will close 11 agency branches throughout Leicestershire and Leicester, including the branch at Highfields in my constituency, which is a densely populated area of some deprivation. Many of our constituents are getting fed up with how the banks operate.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman is right that these issues are difficult. Many Members will have constituents who are worried about the closure of bank branches—it is not just Santander, because Barclays has also announced closures. Of course, the situation is partly the result of changes to the structure of the industry because of the use of online and telephone banking. If I may, I will ask my Treasury colleagues to reply to him. Determining the structure of the banking sector as the changes I describe come into play is not a responsibility of the Government, but my colleagues will have an interest, as do Members on both sides of the House.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May we have a debate on exporting because as we rebuild our economy, we need to sell more goods in the international marketplace? Such a debate would help to highlight the value of such things as the Queen’s award for exports and the help that UK Trade & Investment can provide to companies in my constituency such as the Malted Waffle Company, which exports waffles to Dubai, and Cargo Marketing Services so that they can do better business abroad.

[Mr Lansley]

I give my congratulations to the Malted Waffle Company. I was involved in such things years ago when I was in the then Department of Trade and Industry, so I know that the Queen’s award for exports is not lightly given. The award suggests that a substantial achievement has been made, as was the case when the Cambridge Satchel Company, which is in my constituency, secured a Queen’s award. I do not know the size of the Malted Waffle Company, but it is interesting and encouraging that more medium-sized business are growing not just through the domestic market, but by developing their export markets. A British Chambers of Commerce report on companies throughout the country that was published about a fortnight ago showed an encouraging increase in companies’ confidence that they would increase their export orders in the months to come.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Law Society has a rigorous conveyancing qualification for solicitors, but some mortgage lenders now require solicitors to undertake the conveyancing qualification scheme run by themselves and have a £5 million bond for negligence rather than the £2 million required by law. May we have a debate on how lenders are adding to the costs of conveyancing, reducing choice for consumers and driving small solicitors out of conveyancing?

[Mr Lansley]

We are keen to ensure that consumers have access to competition and choice, and hence the lowest possible cost. I am not in a position to comment on the particular points that the hon. Lady makes, but I will talk to my hon. Friends and see whether they can assist her in how she might take that forward. She may find that she has the opportunity to seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at some point.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

May we have an urgent statement on the Government’s commitment to the virtual court scheme? I have just learned from Medway magistrates court, an excellent local court, that the Ministry of Justice has not confirmed funding post-31 March. It is important that it should have clarity and certainty on that. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend came back to me specifically on that court.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I will. I will raise it directly with the Ministry of Justice. I realise that Saturday is 1 March, so time is short. My hon. Friend must be concerned that the services in his constituency that he appreciates and are valued continue to be supported. I will ask my hon. Friends what the situation is.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Government’s expectations of joint commissioning teams, particularly with regard to respite care? I am concerned that in Birmingham they seem rather unaccountable and have a suspect strategy that does not seem to make financial sense and could result in the closure of purpose-built facilities, such as Kingswood bungalows, which are less than 15 years old.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall how right from the beginning under this coalition Government we secured additional resources, notwithstanding all the pressures, for the provision of respite care. In the current circumstances, looking towards the new financial year, the better care fund, available to local authorities working with their NHS commissioners, offers £3.8 billion across the country specifically to try to join up health and social care, in which respite care, from the point of view of sustaining people in care in the community rather than frequent hospital admissions, can play a significant part. I encourage him to talk to his local authority about how it plans to use the better care fund for that purpose.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has already referred to local government finance, but may we have a debate on how councils can better manage their affairs? Conservative-controlled Rugby borough council set its budget this week, and this successful district council, working effectively as part of the two-tier system in Warwickshire, is not just freezing council tax, but going further and reducing it by 3%—[Interruption.]—yes, 3%, without any reduction in services or staff redundancies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that other councils should follow Rugby’s lead and look harder to find savings?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has asked that question, because it might suggest that, presumably at their own expense, councillors in Hull, following the question earlier by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), should take a little visit to Rugby to see how it is done. The Government very much applaud those councils that are doing this and we are supporting them. As I said, we are providing extra funding for a council tax freeze in the next two years, which will make a total of £5.2 billion for five successive years of council tax freezes, which will be worth up to £1,100 for the average household—further help for hard-working families from this coalition Government.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of a small lobbying group called the Football Supporters Federation, which wishes to see the introduction of what it spuriously calls safe standing areas in British football stadiums. Will he make time for a debate on the vexed issue of a return to standing, so that the merits and considerable demerits of any such move can be aired?

[Mr Lansley]

I am indeed aware of that important point and agree that it should be debated. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, and a BackBench business debate might be better for the matter, rather than one in Government time, which is limited, but I will raise it in any case with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport so that they are aware of it.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

The number of apprenticeship starts in my constituency is one of the highest in the country, and the companies I have spoken with that have taken on an apprentice have told me about the difference it has made. Next week is national apprenticeship week, so may we please have a debate on the role that apprenticeships play in tackling our country’s skills gap? That would allow the House to celebrate the work of apprentices and highlight the fact that there are still more employers who are yet to take on an apprentice than there are those who have.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes some good points. Youth unemployment is lower now than it was at the last election, there are now vacancies and we will have 1.5 million apprenticeships over the course of this Parliament, all of which is very encouraging. I hope that it is increasingly understood that apprenticeships are not just for those who are not capable of academic achievement, because increasingly they are being recognised as a viable career move for those who might have had an opportunity to go to university but chose not to. I have met many apprentices who started working under an apprenticeship scheme, acquired additional qualifications in the fullness of time, up to and including degree qualifications, and were then extremely well equipped to move on to senior positions in the company they worked in.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Many dozens of my Clifton constituents have written to ask me to raise their cases in this House after the Energy Secretary’s panicked energy company obligation changes scuppered their much-needed solid wall insulation scheme, and indeed cost local jobs and apprenticeships. When can we have time to debate properly this Government’s disastrous policy, because at Energy and Climate Change questions this morning Ministers were in utter denial about the impact?

[Mr Lansley]

I was not here when the hon. Lady asked her question, but I will of course look at the record to see what reply my hon. Friends gave.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

My flood-hit constituents are mystified at why the Government do not seem to be applying for EU funds that could assist them. May we have a statement to clarify the situation?

[Mr Lansley]

That relates to the point the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) made on the use of EU structural funds. I will of course ask my hon. Friends about that. As my hon. Friend will recall, the Prime Minister explained at Prime Minister’s questions just over a fortnight ago that there are issues relating to the overall scale of the damage that gives rise to a claim for EU funds. There is also a concern about the impact such claims would have on the British rebate, as I remember from the past, so taking European money in those circumstances is not necessarily a cost-free option.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The overwhelming majority of the British public supports the Hunting Act 2004, which abolished hunting with dogs, yet that civilising piece of legislation, incredibly, is opposed by many Government Members, who want it repealed. Can we have an assurance today from the Leader of the House that any proposal to repeal the Act will be subject to a vote of the whole House, not an obscure Statutory Instrument Committee?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not aware of any circumstances in which what the hon. Gentleman describes might happen. The coalition programme was clear that the intention was for the question of the Hunting Act to be brought forward for a free vote of the whole House.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I would like to add my voice to the calls for an urgent debate on the provision of A and E services at Huddersfield royal infirmary, which is in my constituency, and Calderdale royal hospital. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who also asked about that, actually uses the HRI, but I had to use it last summer when I fractured my elbow while running the Honley 10 km race, and I was given excellent service. Please bear in mind that my constituents’ memories are scarred after the downgrading of maternity services at the HRI under the previous Government.

[Mr Lansley]

I remember, not least through having spent time with my hon. Friend in his constituency, the issues that arose on the downgrading of maternity services. To reiterate the point I made earlier, in that case it was far from clear how the changes that were to be undertaken would deliver an improved service for the patients and communities served, which is what we are setting out to do as regards A and E. I cannot comment on the circumstances in Huddersfield and neighbouring communities, but I know what Sir Bruce Keogh’s report said about the issue, because I was involved at the outset in understanding the nature of the problems in A and E departments. Those problems are often caused by a large number of patients with the most serious conditions being brought into A and E departments that do not necessarily have the specialist skills required to give them the most effective treatment as rapidly as possible. We need to deliver that treatment while not limiting access for the great majority of patients to A and E services in their local community.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister speaks highly of the work that food banks do in all our communities, so will a Minister, or even the Prime Minister, explain why Tory MEPs voted against a £3 million fund for food banks? Thankfully, the Tories lost heavily by 592 votes to 61, but even so, the Prime Minister still will not allow UK food banks to apply to that fund. Why?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not familiar with the vote in the European Parliament or with the character of the European fund. While we absolutely welcome and applaud the work that food banks do, the hon. Gentleman will understand that with any European scheme there are issues that relate not to the desirability of the objective but to the appropriateness, on the grounds of subsidiarity, of a European scheme for the purpose.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Non-payment of television licence fees represent an estimated 12% of all magistrates’ cases, with more than 190,000 cases in 2012 alone. May we have a debate on the burden on the state of prosecuting those cases? May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the new clause I have submitted to the Deregulation Bill that would decriminalise non-payment of the television licence, making it instead a civil offence? We should end the ludicrous situation whereby those who genuinely cannot pay are criminalised merely for being poor.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend, who has put forward an amendment to the Deregulation Bill, makes a point that I know will interest Members of the House. If I may, I will defer to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who is serving on the Bill Committee and will have an opportunity in due course to respond to my hon. Friend on this issue.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

For those of us in a state of disbelief at the Conservative party’s claim to be the party of the workers, may I invite the Leader of the House to demonstrate this new-found commitment by intervening in the pay deal that has been offered to the staff of this House, who keep the business of this House going? After four years of a freeze, they have been offered 1%, but actually it is not even 1% because they are being asked to work two more hours, so their hourly pay is going down. Will he intervene and sort this out?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that as a member of the House of Commons Commission I am one of those whose responsibility it is to employ members of staff of this House. We continue to regard the staff of this House as among its principal assets. We value what they do. The pay award that is now available to them is one which we believe brings it into line, as we are statutorily obliged to do, with the pay environment in the civil service more generally; that is particularly true in relation to hours. But we also think that it is as generous as we can make it, and I think it would be in the interests of members of staff of this House to accept it.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

In the run-up to the Indian elections, it appears that opponents of Narendra Modi will stop at nothing to smear him, including using rooms in this House to publish thoroughly scurrilous reports attacking him personally. May we have a debate on the relationship between Britain and India—and in particular on the Indian elections—which would give the Foreign Secretary an opportunity to welcome Narendra Modi as the next Prime Minister of India?

[Mr Lansley]

India is the world’s largest democracy, and the question of who should be its next Prime Minister is one for the people of that country to decide. I do not think it is one for the United Kingdom to interfere in, or even that it is proper for us in government to debate the merits of that. That is for them to decide. We enjoy excellent relations with politicians in India from across the political spectrum and a number of Indian Chief Ministers have visited the United Kingdom in recent years. We have very much welcomed them.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

With all the passion for working people demonstrated on all Benches in the Chamber today, I am sure the whole House will want to celebrate with me the birthday of the only party ever set up to represent working people 114 years ago today—the Labour party.

Ministers gave cast-iron, black and white guarantees that the independent expert panel report on the failed badger culls would be produced to this Parliament before the end of February. That gives us today and tomorrow. Does the Leader of the House have any news?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as the expert panel is an independent body, the timing of the completion and submission to Ministers of its reports is ultimately a matter for that panel.

Backbench Business

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

11:22

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to commission an independent cumulative assessment of the impact of changes in the welfare system on sick and disabled people, their families and carers, drawing upon the expertise of the Work and Pensions Select Committee; requests that this impact assessment examine care home admissions, access to day care centres, access to education for people with learning difficulties, provision of universal mental health treatments, closures of Remploy factories, the Government’s contract with Atos Healthcare, IT implementation of universal credit, human rights abuses against disabled people, excess deaths of welfare claimants and the disregard of medical evidence in decision-making by Atos, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Tribunals Service; urges the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education jointly to launch a consultation on improving support into work for sick and disabled people; and further calls on the Government to end with immediate effect the work capability assessment, as voted for by the British Medical Association, to discontinue forced work under the threat of sanctions for people on disability benefits and to bring forward legislative proposals to allow a free vote on repeal of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

We are making history today. This is the first time in the history of this Parliament that people with disabilities have secured a debate in the Chamber on an agenda of their choosing, so let us pay tribute to the War on Welfare campaigners. They initiated the campaign, drafted the petition that we have before us in the form of a motion, and worked hard for a year to gather more than 100,000 signatures in order to secure this debate. They are heroes and heroines who worked, many of them despite their disability, to ensure that this campaign was a success.

MPs may speak in this debate, but it is the voice of the WOW campaigners and petitioners that will be heard. What do the WOW campaigners want from this debate? They have said that they want a serious debate. They want MPs, party spokespeople and Ministers to listen, and to listen well to the statements that they have made. What do they want us to say? I have asked WOW petitioners what they want me and other MPs to say in today’s debate. They said, “We want you to get across as best you can what the welfare changes brought in over the last four years have meant to us and our families—the stark reality.” Why do they want that? Perhaps naively, they believe that if MPs and Ministers really knew what it is like, what disabled people are going through, they would not stand by and let fellow human beings suffer and be degraded in this way.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Ahead of the debate, the Brighton Housing Trust sent me some alarming data of 25 cases it had looked at concerning claimants of employment and support allowance. All of them won their appeal and had the decision overturned. In 72% of cases the decisions were overturned on the basis of a mental health condition, and 32% of that sample group stated that the process had caused an increase in suicidal intention. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the implications of the policy are literally a matter of life and death?

[John McDonnell]

I agree completely. The figures in Brighton are echoed around the country and have been reported for a number of years.

We met some of the disabled campaigners this morning. One of them said, referring to Ministers, “Do they realise that many of us feel terrorised by what the Government are doing?” Another disabled campaigner said to me this morning, “Can you tell them that they call their programme fulfilling our potential, but we feel that many of us simply won’t survive this round of cuts? A generation is going to be lost.” The central demand of the petition is straightforward: the motion is, in essence, a call for a cumulative impact assessment of all the welfare changes that have been introduced by this Government. The argument that campaigners put forward is that if politicians and society only knew the full effect of all the changes on the lives of disabled people and their families, surely they would not let that happen in a civilised society. Let us see whether we can move hearts and change minds in this debate.

Let us run through some of the figures. There are 11.3 million people with a disability in the UK, 4.5 million of whom have a significant disability that entitles them to a disability benefit such as the disability living allowance or the attendance allowance. The group the welfare cuts are hurting the most is the 2.7 million people with disabilities who live in poverty.

I remember the Prime Minister’s statements in 2010 when the Government launched their austerity programme to cut public spending. In October 2010, he said that

“it is fair that those with broader shoulders should bear a greater load”,

that the greatest burden would be placed on the better off, and that the cuts would be fair. Well, the reverse is the case.

I urge Members to read at least one of the relevant reports. In “Counting the Cuts”, Simon Duffy, the director of the Centre for Welfare Reform, explains that disabled people in poverty are bearing the cuts four times worse than the average, while the burden on people using social care is nearly six times that on the average person. Other reports escalate the figure and say that the burden on people with disabilities is perhaps 20 times the average. The reason for that is that disabled people are being hit by a combination of cuts in funding for social care and support and by wave after wave of cuts—almost annually—in welfare benefits.

Let us look at the cuts in care and support. Many disabled people rely on local authority social care and support. By next month, £2.68 billion will have been cut out of adult social care budgets across the country. In 2012-13, 320,000 fewer disabled people and 37,000 fewer adults aged between 18 and 64 with physical impairments received local authority care and support than in 2005-06. The number of adults with mental health issues receiving care and support has reduced by 30,000.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that decent social care is about not just helping people cope with their disabilities, but helping them live an ordinary life that the rest of us take for granted—being able to get up, wash, dressed and fed, spend time with their families and go out into the community, as well as being able to work, if they can? Is that not why the cuts in social care have been so devastating?

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly why people feel that the impact is so harsh. Many local authorities have changed the eligibility criteria—that is the problem—to cover only those with substantial needs, which automatically cuts out about 100,000 people from receiving any form of social care whatever.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is very much a false economy, because cutting back on social care will inevitably lead to people’s conditions tending to deteriorate, meaning that they will need more urgent care and that many of them will find themselves in hospital? Consequently, the cost to the public purse is substantially greater as a result of this false economy and these cuts, which are so devastating to disabled people.

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly right. There are three consequences from what is happening. First, disabled people are being forced more and more to rely and depend on care from their own family members, who are themselves, to be frank, overstretched in providing that care, especially as local authority respite care is now being cut back so dramatically. Startlingly, as we found in a previous debate, a large number of these carers are children caring for their parents. A year-long investigation by Carers UK confirmed that carers, who save this country an estimated £119 billion a year in care costs, are about to lose £1 billion in benefit cuts.

Secondly, the care needs of many disabled people are simply not being met. A recent inquiry by the all-party groups on local government and on disability found from the evidence they took that four in 10 disabled people are failing to have their basic social care needs—which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) has mentioned—met.

Thirdly, as my hon. Friend has said, the withdrawal of social care and support services is cutting many people off from any form of social contact with the outside world. Many are driven back into their homes, while others are forced out of them, losing all their independence, and into residential care or even hospital care as a result.



Alongside cuts to social care, there are the mounting cuts in welfare benefits. Like most hon. Members, the vast majority of disabled people whom I have met are, like any other employed person, desperate to work and support their family with a regular wage. For some, the tragedy is that their disability is so severe that they will never be able to work and will have to rely on welfare benefits to ensure that they do not live in poverty, while others need positive and sensitive practical support to help them to get back into work or to work in the first place.

The system introduced during the past six years to support people in securing work or the appropriate benefits could not have been better designed to undermine disabled people’s ability to get into work or receive the appropriate benefits to assist them. The previous Government started the process of reassessing all those on incapacity benefit to see whether they could be assisted back into work, and if not, to ensure that they had the right level of financial support. They introduced the work capability assessment, and brought in Atos to implement it. That might have been well intentioned in theory, but in practice, thousands of disabled people have been caused untold suffering, humiliation, stress and, at times, absolute despair.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the introduction of the work capability assessment under our Government was phased? Part of the distress he mentions was due to the fact that the contract was renegotiated to go for a big bang of assessments and reassessments of everyone on incapacity benefit.

[John McDonnell]

The work capability assessment was flawed from the start. It stemmed from the work of the American insurance company Unum, and the so-called biopsychosocial model of disability assessment. That was exposed as an invention by the insurance companies simply to avoid paying out for claims. My right hon. Friend is, however, absolutely right that Atos was brought in and then given a contract to churn through large numbers of assessments very rapidly—as fast as possible. The staff employed in order to achieve that often had minimal medical or professional qualifications, and their expertise or experience was often totally unrelated to the condition or disability of the people they assessed.

Assessments largely disregarded people’s previous diagnosis, prognosis or even life expectancy. The recent “Panorama” programme “Disabled or Faking It?” exposed the scandal of seriously ill patients—people diagnosed with life-threatening conditions such as heart failure or end-stage emphysema—being found fit for work. The so-called descriptors, or criteria, on which assessments are based bear no relation to the potential employment available, take little account of fluctuating conditions and are particularly unresponsive to appreciating someone’s mental health issues.

According to all the Department for Work and Pensions figures, the appeals roll in—on 40% of decisions—and most appeals are now successful. The test has been condemned by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. The report by the president of the appeals tribunal to the Government denounced the test as

“failing to coincide with reality”.

Even when someone wins their appeal, there can be a lengthy wait before their benefits are reinstated. In one period, 37,000 people were waiting up to a year to receive benefits after they had won their appeal.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cuts to the legal aid system—taking away the right to get legal aid for welfare benefit appeals—have caused additional distress to the sick and disabled people who are seeking an appeal?

[John McDonnell]

Interestingly, all the statistics prove that people who are represented win their appeal in vast numbers, while those who are not represented are suffering. To be frank, it is no wonder that 84% of GPs have reported that patients have presented with mental health problems, such as stress, anxiety and depression as a result of undergoing or the fear of undergoing the work capability assessment.

For all those reasons, the BMA has called for an end to the WCA “with immediate effect”, believing that it should be replaced with

“a rigorous and safe system that does not cause avoidable harm”.

Such systems are used in other countries, so why can we not use one of them here? That is why the motion calls for the WCA to be scrapped.

People assessed as capable of work and put on employment and support allowance within the work-related group now lose their contributory ESA after 12 months. Some 700,000 disabled people are losing a total of £4.4 billion as a result of the 12-month cut-off. There has been a massive escalation in the use of sanctions against people who are on ESA or jobseeker’s allowance; some 900,000 people were sanctioned last year.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Is it not ironic, at the very least, that the people who are most affected by the one-year cut off are those who, for instance, have a working partner or small savings—the very hard-working people whom the Government say they want to protect?

[John McDonnell]

People thought that they were contributing to a scheme that they would see the benefits from. They now find that they have contributed, but that they will no longer get the benefits. That is unjust.

One in five of the people on JSA who were sanctioned is disabled. Sanctions mean the loss of benefits altogether for weeks or even months. That is compounded, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) said, by the increasing difficulty in securing advice or advocacy to appeal or challenge sanctions.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the case of one of my constituents. He was receiving ESA, but had a heart attack during his assessment and was sanctioned as a result of leaving it. I called on the Government to hold an independent review of the inappropriate use of sanctions. They committed to do so in the Work and Pensions Committee, but are now reneging on that. Is that not a disgrace?

[John McDonnell]

Members have brought forward example after example like that one. We are simply looking for some compassion and logic in the governance of the system. The Government have ignored that, tragically.

Many people report that, as a result of sanctions, they are dependent on doorstep loans and are using credit cards for everyday items. Some people have fallen into long-term debt. Some Members met a representative of Disability UK on Monday. He described all this as a route into destitution for many people.

Disabled people who are on ESA are placed on the Work programme and offered support from Work Choice. The latest figures on the success rate of the Work programme in finding employment for disabled people show that only 5.3% of them secured employment. That is a 95% failure rate. Work Choice is meant to assist those with complex needs, but it has helped only 58 people since 2011. The forced closure of the Remploy factories under this Government has taken away the opportunity of sheltered work for many thousands of disabled people.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I visited my local Work Choice provider the other week. I was amazed to discover that everyone who was there to participate was on jobseeker’s allowance. They were not on a disability benefit, even though they had disabilities. I did not think that that was what Work Choice was meant to be about.

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly what is reported by constituency Member after constituency Member after their visits. I am concerned about time, so I will press on and take no further interventions, if Members do not mind.

Let me turn to the personal independence payment. Some 3.2 million disabled people receive disability living allowance. DLA is not a work benefit; it is meant to help with the additional costs caused by disability. It allows disabled people to get by and to overcome some of the restrictions that are forced upon them by their disability. From April 2013, DLA was supposed to be replaced gradually by PIP. I urge Members to read today’s National Audit Office report that assesses the roll-out. It states:

“Backlogs have developed at each stage of the claimant process. Both the Department and assessment providers have processed fewer claims than they expected”.

It states that by October,

“the Department had made only 16% of the number of decisions it expected, over 166,000 people had started new claims for Personal Independence Payment and 92,000 claims had been transferred to the assessment provider and not yet returned to the Department”.

Who is the assessment provider? After the WCA debacle, it is hard to believe that the Government allowed Atos to share the contract with Capita.

The report goes on to say:

“Claimants face delays, and the Department is not able to tell them how long they are likely to wait, potentially creating distress and financial difficulties.”

It states:

“Citizens Advice has found that claimants are concerned about paying for their care, covering housing costs and having enough money to pay for necessities such as heating, electricity and food.”

The Demos-Scope study calculates that 600,000 people will be impacted by the introduction of PIP, with a total loss of £2.6 billion.

Among the many eligibility changes, there have been changes to the eligibility for the mobility component. That means that 148,000 people will lose out on that additional benefit. It also potentially denies access to a Motability vehicle, and we know today that many people are having their Motability cars removed. The irony is that, as a result, they cannot get to work.

Disabled people are especially vulnerable to other benefit changes, and they will be disproportionately hit by the bedroom tax. Some 72% of affected households include someone with a disability or major health problem, and 420,000 disabled people will lose on average £14 a week in housing benefit. One in three disabled people is refused the discretionary housing payment. Shockingly, local councils have rejected applications from disabled people living in adapted properties who are unable to downsize. Last week, it was also revealed that the £347 million local welfare assistance fund to local councils had quietly been cut by the Government.

The Welfare Reform Act 2012 also changed the uprating of benefits basis from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, costing some families receiving DLA and the carer’s allowance £80 a week. It has been estimated that 142,500 disabled people will be hit by the benefit cap, costing £2 billion. Universal credit looms over all of this. Research by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux estimates that 116,000 disabled people could lose £40 a week; that 230,000 severely disabled people who live alone or with only a young carer will get between £28 and £58 less a week; and that 100,000 disabled children will lose £28 a week.

What do all these figures add up to? Although the Government have refused to undertake a cumulative assessment of the effect of all the benefit changes on disabled people, others have done so. The Demos-Scope study calculated that disabled people will lose £28.3 billion by 2018. Dr Simon Bamber concludes that disabled people in poverty, who make up 4% of the population, will bear 13% of the cuts and lose £4,660 a year. People using social care who make up 3% of the population will also bear 13% of the cuts, and lose £6,409 a year.

In conclusion, what do these changes mean in reality? They mean poverty for many. They mean not enough income for someone to heat their home adequately—there are nearly 1 million disabled people now in fuel poverty. They mean someone choosing not to eat so that their children can do so, and their feeling shamed and humiliated by having to rely on the generosity of others and support from the food bank. I urge people to look at the website, Calum’s List. For some it is all too much and they become another in a coroner’s report whose suicide is associated with the loss of benefits. Many of the disabled people I have met say the same thing. They tell me they feel hounded by the media, by politicians and by this Government, just for being disabled and claiming the benefits they are entitled to receive.

What the War on Welfare campaigners are demanding today is the truth. They want a cumulative impact assessment of all welfare changes, so that the truth of their plight can be revealed. They believe—perhaps naively—that if the truth is told, no decent society would allow its most vulnerable members to be treated in this way. That is why I supported the petition and tabled the motion before the House, and why I will be pressing it to a vote.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. There will be a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches starting now. It will be necessary to reduce the time further if it takes longer to get through the speakers, and because there are two debates today, this one must finish promptly.

11:43

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have prepared a shorter version of my remarks, so I hope Members will forgive me if there is not as much detail as I might like to have given.

The motion before the House

“calls on the Government to end with immediate effect the work capability assessment”

and if I may, I would like to look at the WCA in some detail.

It is a simple fact of government that policies designed to deal with the general often struggle with the specific. Despite the need for a clear structured process to assess whether someone qualifies for a benefit, I acknowledge that no responsible Government can approach something like the WCA as if it is some sort of industrial quality control test. This is not a question that can always be answered with a simple yes or no because decisions taken have a clear effect on people’s lives, and reaching the wrong decision can be devastating. However, the Government have not approached the test that way.

The test was created in 2008 by the previous Labour Government, as incapacity benefit was designed to be replaced by the employment and support allowance. The coalition Government have carried that programme forward, including the key commitment that the WCA testing regime needed annual review and improvement for at least the first five years of its life. There have been four such reviews: three under Professor Harrington and the latest under Dr Paul Litchfield, which was published in December. Of Professor Harrington’s cumulative 49 recommendations, 35 were accepted in full and a further 10 in principle. Of the 35 accepted, 29 have been fully implemented and three partially implemented. A further three are still in progress. Of the 10 accepted in principle, five have been fully implemented, two partially implemented and three are in progress. We are making progress on improving the WCA.

On 12 December, the evidence-based review of the WCA was published. It compared the results produced by the WCA and those of an alternative designed by a consortium of experts and disability representative organisations, with a panel of experts reviewing each case. Many cases were looked at more than once. The report makes for interesting reading and two conclusions jump out: the WCA creates a much more consistent result than the proposed alternative; and the WCA is significantly more likely to accord with the judgment produced by the expert panel reviewing each case than with the proposed alternative.

The conclusions are important because they tell us how the WCA should work as a whole. We know that it is pretty much impossible to find a single general test that fits all eventualities. What we have is a system with an appeal mechanism that clearly anticipates that the WCA, even with Department for Work and Pensions staff interpretation and other evidence overlaid, will not always produce perfect results. That is why there will be a considerable number of successful appeals. That is exactly how the system should work, and it does.

The review of WCA found that the expert panel judged that about 26% of all cases presented were borderline, even with full access to information. If that is the case, we would expect an appeal process, which after all consists of expert opinion, to alter some decisions. They do so at a rate that is very similar to the rate the panel found as borderline in the review process. That should surprise nobody.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting comments. I have been very concerned about the effect of the WCA on people with mental health problems, which are particularly badly assessed, and have taken people to see the Minister. Did the study look at mental health issues, which are particularly hard to assess with a single snapshot?

[George Hollingbery]

Indeed it did. The expert panel that sat to adjudicate on every single one of those test cases took the advice of mental health experts. A number of mental health specialists are now provided with specialist training in the testing regime. I think the figure is 30, but that is off the top of my head and it may be as many as 60.

In the fourth report, Dr Litchfield largely endorses the position I outline. He says:

“Any ‘test’ is necessarily a trade-off of many factors and the WCA appears to be a reasonable and pragmatic tool.”

There remain those who call for its abolition, but suggestions for what to replace it with are rarely forthcoming. No test is ever perfect, but the WCA has been designed with considerable rigour and is subject to a process of continuous improvement.

I hope that hon. Members will forgive this slightly tortuous journey through the WCA, but it is very important to show just how much trouble and care has been taken to design and improve it. It is not perfect and it will not always produce fair and just results, but that is what the appeals process is for and there to catch. That it is necessary to have some sort of objective test to help decision makers seems to me to be undeniable. Hence I cannot support the motion’s call for the abolition of the WCA.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a very technical analysis of the WCA. My constituent, Mr McArdle, who runs the Black Triangle campaigning group, has on his website and Facebook page a whole list of human stories about how the WCA acts in practice. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would mind looking at that after his speech today to get some of the human side, because it is not just about a technical analysis of how these things work.

[George Hollingbery]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that in prefacing my remarks I made it clear that this cannot be a mechanistic process, like some sort of quality control process. It has to involve the human. I acknowledge that there are many cases where results have been, shall we say, questionable—there is no doubt about that. Nevertheless, that it is necessary to have such a test is, I think, undeniable: the Government cannot, will-nilly, go judging entitlement to benefits without any test of any sort. Yes, it is difficult to make the case that I am making without sounding dry and technocratic—I take his point absolutely.

In the time remaining, I would like to draw the House’s attention to some real outcomes produced by my local providers, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will take as a human face of what can be a reasonably successful programme. My local providers are the Shaw Trust in Portsmouth and A4e in Southampton, which is run by a team led by George Gallop. I hope that we can all celebrate some of the results of their work.

Alex, aged 20, was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and found it almost impossible to settle down to any kind of work. A4e’s relationship with Harsco, a large building services company, was crucial in enabling Alex to train for a certificate under the construction skills certification scheme, and to become a scaffolder. Alex said:

“I felt like nobody would ever employ me. I didn’t even know what 1 was doing wrong…it is the kind of job that sets you up for life and I love it. If 1 look at how my life has changed in the last year I can’t believe it”.

Daniel, aged 19, was homeless and unable to look after his young family because he suffered from depression. He was one of the first young people to enter Radian Housing’s “proving talent” programme, delivered by A4e in Southampton. He came through the scheme, and now has a permanent job in technical services with Radian. He said:

“it feels amazing to be back on track, in employment providing for my family and feeling good about myself.”

Sandra, aged 45, was a proud working mum of two, trapped in a wheelchair. Because of ill health, she was made unemployed and became dependent on employment and support allowance. At first she resented being referred to the Work programme, but her advisers and trainers helped to motivate her, and to give her the confidence and skills that she needed in order to return to work. She said:

“Now I think about what I can do, instead of what I can’t”.

David broke his back in an accident in 1997, and received incapacity benefit for more than 15 years. At an ESA work-focused interview in December 2012, he was asked when he had last had a good laugh and when he had last smiled. He replied that what had saved his life was a passion for his reptile collection. David and his wife have now signed off from ESA, and have set up their own business in a shop in Copnor road, Portsmouth, selling and boarding exotic pets.

To me, those are inspiring stories of people afflicted by disability and sickness who, with the right help from the right people at the right time, have managed to find their way back into employment, and, in so doing, have rediscovered their sense of self-confidence and self-worth. Of course there is much more to do and many improvements can be made to the system, but surely those are outcomes that we should all celebrate.

Is all rosy in the garden? Of course not. There are still many challenges, and many changes are required. There are still too many people who do not find permanent employment. There are many whose benefit applications and assessments take far too long to process, and who are left without an income in the meantime. As has already been said, the transition from disability living allowance to personal independence payments is proving to be a challenge. For all that, however, the evidence that I see on my visits suggests that many of our fellow citizens are being given a new lease of life by the Government’s approach to welfare, and the central assumption that there is nothing compassionate about—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

11:52

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I too, pay tribute to the WOW campaigners not only for securing more than 100,000 signatures to the petition, but for securing today’s debate. If anything could be said to illustrate the effectiveness of social media in opening up the lives of disabled people and allowing them to connect with other people throughout the country, it is an event such as this, inspired by the ability to connect with others who may be experiencing similar trials and tribulations—in this instance, at the hands of the Department for Work and Pensions.

The Government say that they are not picking on disabled people and those with severe health problems. Let us look at the evidence. The main benefits that are paid to people with disabilities and health problems are ESA, benefits paid following work capability assessments, and the new personal independence payment which will replace the disability living allowance. Every one of those benefits is currently undergoing enormous changes and reforms, initiated by the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

We know that those reforms are not going well. Only this week, we learnt that the work capability reassessments had been suspended, and that Atos, the company delivering them, wants to end its contract. We are hearing rumours that a face-to-face work capability assessment in the home is taking up to six months to arrange. We know that those who are lucky enough to receive ESA, if they are in the work-related activity group and claiming the contributory element, will receive the benefit for only a year.

Also, as has been mentioned, the people who are in the contributory ESA group are the ones who have worked all their lives—who have paid their national insurance and who thought they were paying into an insurance scheme that would look after them if the worst came to the worst and they were not able to work any more. Interestingly therefore, it is not just those who come from the poorest backgrounds, and whose whole families have perhaps depended on benefits, who are suffering under this Government—although that group most definitely is—but it is also people who thought they had done the right thing. It is people who have done what previous Governments asked and have worked and contributed and have done as well as they could.

The National Audit Office report published today shows that the roll-out of PIP seems to be in chaos as well. There are huge backlogs, and there are constituents of mine who have been waiting for over six months to get a determination after they have had their face-to-face interview.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. These delays in PIP payments in particular are causing so much stress. Does she share my horror that, for example, in Brighton some front-line services have been doing their own surveys of how long people have been waiting, and the advice centre in Brighton and Hove found that only three of 60 clients—fewer than 5%—have actually been assessed? Does she agree that that causes massive uncertainty and stress?

[Dame Anne Begg]

Yes, and it is particularly difficult for people who have quite progressive diseases. For those with terminal illnesses, there is an attempt to get payments out quite quickly, but even then it takes longer than normal. I have a constituent who has very aggressive multiple sclerosis who is desperate for this help but who cannot get it because he does not fall under the special measures category.

The benefits I have mentioned are those that everybody knows are specifically for disabled people and people with health problems, but there are other benefits, too, and other changes to benefits that fall disproportionately on that group. Which single group is hardest hit by the changes to housing benefit and local housing allowance? It is disabled people and those with health problems. Which single group is hardest hit by the bedroom tax? Surprise, surprise, it is disabled people and those with health problems. Which group is hardest hit by the removal of the full council tax relief? Again, it is disabled people and people with health problems. That is because all these changes fall on people of working age, and the people of working age who are most likely to be on these benefits are people who cannot work because of a disability or a health problem.

Who is the hardest hit by the overall benefits cap? The Government said it would not be disabled people, and it probably is not them, but it is their carers, particularly if they are family carers. Who is hardest hit by the social care cuts that mean that local authorities are not able to provide the social care that people need? Of course, it is disabled people and those with health problems. If universal credit ever comes in, severe disablement premium goes, which was paid to people who are single and living alone.

Because it is not just the obvious benefits that go to disabled people that are being cut or are in chaos or not working, but all these other benefits and changes that are also affecting people who have a disability and their families, there is an absolute need for a cumulative impact assessment. I have been calling for a cumulative impact assessment for a number of years now and that is because no one knows precisely the full force of everything that may be falling on individual families and individual households. Unless we do that cumulative impact assessment, we will never know, and in the meantime those families and households are struggling to make ends meet, falling into debt and having to make the choice between eating and heating. They are having to make choices we should not have to make in 21st century Britain. That is why I am very happy to support this debate this afternoon.

11:59

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I congratulate the War on Welfare campaign on its petition and on securing this debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on introducing it today. Although I have not supported every detail of the Government’s welfare reform, I certainly support the overall thrust of what they are doing. Under Labour, the welfare budget had spiralled out of control and become unsustainable. Liberal Democrats in government are building a stronger economy and a fairer society so that everyone can get on in life. We are fully committed to enabling people with disabilities to have the same opportunities and choices in life as everyone else. It is important to note that disabled people are moving into jobs at the rate of more than 100 placements every working day.

[Liz Kendall]

Why does the hon. Gentleman support the bedroom tax, which has affected 2,300 people in Leicester? The council has overspent the discretionary fund by £100,000 this year because there has been such demand for it, and it had to increase it from £212,000 last year to £813,000 this year because of a tax that he supported. Why does he support it?

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Lady’s question is based on the wrong premise. I actually voted against the bedroom tax. As I said in my introduction, I did not support every detail of the Government’s proposals.

It is interesting to note all the opposition from Labour Members to everything the Government are doing. I look forward to hearing what the Opposition spokesperson says about this later, because I understand that Labour do not propose to spend any more on welfare payments than the Government are doing. It will therefore be interesting to hear what the official Labour line is, as opposed to all the complaints that we are hearing from its Back Benchers.

As well as tackling the economic mess that Labour left behind, Liberal Democrats in government have blocked the excesses that a Conservative-only Government would have implemented. For example, we prevented the Conservatives from freezing disability benefits. Instead, they are going up by 2.7% this year. Assessment of applications for disability benefits is an integral part of welfare reform, and this Government have improved on the system left behind by Labour. Thanks to Liberal Democrat amendments to Labour’s Welfare Reform Act 2007, the Government are required to conduct five annual independent reviews of the work capability assessment. In government, we are now acting on those reviews to improve the system. Professor Harrington completed the first three reviews, and found that our efforts to improve the WCA were making a difference.

[Sheila Gilmore]

For the purposes of putting the record straight, the requirement for independent assessments of employment and support allowance was in the original legislation, pre-2010.

[Mr Reid]

I did not catch the year that the hon. Lady mentioned. The WCA was introduced by the Labour Government, and this Government have improved on it.

Following Professor Harrington’s reviews, the Government gave Department for Work and Pensions decision makers more flexibility to request additional evidence, such as a letter from an applicant’s consultant. The fourth independent review was completed in December 2013 by Dr Litchfield. He found that the DWP had made good progress on implementing recommendations from the previous reviews, which have made notable improvements. However, despite all the improvements to the system, and having a system that looks fine in theory, we all know from our constituency work that, in practice, Atos has failed miserably to carry out the assessment contract. Appeals have been upheld for 40% of the original decisions. That shows that there is something wrong with the initial assessments and that more improvements to the assessment system must be made.

We are all aware from our constituency case load of people waiting for many months for their assessment to be carried out. That applies to assessments for personal independence payments as well as for work capability assessments. The limit for PIP assessments is supposed to be 30 working days, but Atos is clearly failing miserably to meet that target. I was contacted recently by the Bute Advice Centre in my constituency. It pointed out that it, and the client, have three weeks from the initial phone call in which to complete and return the application form. The centre and the client have met the deadline on every occasion, but then the long wait begins. One client who has been waiting since 2 July 2013 has heard nothing from Atos. Two other clients on Bute have been waiting since early October. The advice centre tells me that phone calls to the Department for Work and Pensions get a helpful response, but the DWP puts the blame on Atos, and from Atos there is complete silence. That is utterly unacceptable.

Another constituent has e-mailed me to say that her current employment and support allowance claim started last May and she submitted her medical questionnaire in July. After many months of waiting, she was eventually told by Atos that her work capability assessment would be conducted two days after her contribution-based ESA ends if she is placed in the work-related activity group. Such delays make complete nonsense of the system.

It is true that any benefit awarded will be backdated but, as my constituent points out, a claimant may have been eligible for the support group at the time of their application. If their health improves over the year, they may be placed in the work-related activity group backdated to the time of their application, yet if the assessment had been conducted quickly, they may have been placed in the support group. If the person has savings, their ESA will stop after a year, and that may well be before it has even started to be paid. That just makes nonsense of the system.

The long delays are very unfair to claimants, putting them under increased financial pressure and stress. Their suitability for work could be wrongly assessed as the assessment is completed such a long time after the application was made.

As I have said, the system looks fine in theory, and the Government have made improvements, but Atos has clearly completely failed. As we all know, it has announced that it wants to throw in the towel. The Government must get the mess created by Atos’s abject failure sorted out as a matter of urgency, appoint a company that can do the job properly and get the backlog cleared as quickly as possible. People applying for disability benefits deserve their application to be assessed speedily and accurately.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman take any responsibility for the Government whom he supports?

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Gentleman should remember that Atos was appointed by the Labour Government. It was an appalling decision by the previous Labour Government, and this Government inherited the contract.

I support most of the Government’s welfare reforms. They are fine in theory, but in practice, there is a huge number of problems. Atos has failed completely. The Government must get the mess sorted out urgently, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that point today.

12:07

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for securing this debate via the Backbench Business Committee and for bringing to our attention the fact that the WOW campaign has gathered 104,000 signatures on its petition on the Directgov website.

The fact that this motion has to be considered by Parliament is an indictment of our political system. It is an issue and a cause that I brought to the House’s attention via a debate in Westminster Hall a little over a year ago. I am pleased to say that it continues to receive the deserved consideration of this House as a wrong that needs to be righted. The truth is that we do not need an independent cumulative impact assessment to tell us what is going on. Every week, Members in this House have to deal with the devastating damage caused by the so-called welfare reforms.

In my own constituency of Gateshead, the reforms are having a profound impact on people’s lives, disproportionately affecting disabled people, their carers and their families. The policies and their implementation are causing immeasurable anxiety and tangible human suffering. We all know what the effects of them are. We support this motion as a means of exposing the truth, which is that the Government are driven by one consistent ideological principle—a determination to protect the privileged by demonising and attacking the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Mearns]

I will not give way for the moment.

How else can we explain the fact that of the £63.4 billion of public expenditure cuts forecast by 2015, 29% of them fall on disabled people who make up only 8% of the population? Even worse, how else can we explain the fact that those with the most severe disabilities, who make up only 2% of the population, have to endure 15% of the cuts? In the face of that, can we continue to regard ourselves as a civilised society? What kind of civilised society seeks to finance its deficit recovery programme out of the suffering of the poorest and most vulnerable while managing to target tax cuts to the most privileged?

Thirty-one people died in the three years to October 2011 waiting for their appeals against the assessments which said that they were able to work. The BBC’s “Panorama” programme reported in July 2012 that, on average, 32 people died every week whom the Government had declared could be helped into work in the medium term.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent and powerful points. Does he agree that the work capability test is not fit for purpose and that taking a template from an American health care model on the descriptors is absolute nonsense?

[Ian Mearns]

I am about to discuss that, and I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.

Put bluntly, this Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and their agencies are telling us, repeatedly, that people who are dying are fit for work. Between January 2011 and November 2011, some 10,600 employment and support allowance claims ended and a date of death was recorded within six weeks of the claim end. This Government have repeatedly refused to release updated 2013 statistics on deaths within six weeks of the end of an ESA claim, calling such requests for information “vexatious”. Four people a day are dying within six weeks of being declared fit for work under the WCA—it is scandalous and an indictment of this place. Some might consider this bad taste, but I am told that there was a story doing the rounds that when the bones of Richard III were discovered in Leicester, Atos carried out an assessment and judged him fit for work. It would be funny if it was not so sad. It is a sad truth faced by 12,000-plus families who every year face their own personal tragedies of this nature—it is a reality.

As if not bad enough, workfare and welfare reforms are of course only part of the impact; cuts to local government expenditure also have the heaviest impact on the most vulnerable. The largest share of adult social care users—older people, people with physical disabilities and people with mental health problems—have to bear the brunt of reductions in social care. The recent joint inquiry by the all-party groups on local government and on disability showed that four in 10 disabled people are failing to have their basic social care needs met and that nearly half of disabled people say that services are not supporting them to get out and about in the community. Three quarters of the 4,500 respondents to “The Tipping Point” survey said that losing some of their disability living allowance income would mean they would require more social care support from their local council, at a time when the councils with the largest numbers of chronically sick and disabled people are suffering the largest cuts in grant funding from central Government.

In my youth I was actively involved in many Amnesty International campaigns, such as those on Chile and South Africa, and those against oppressive regimes in central and Latin America. I never would have imagined then that in 2014 the UK would be the subject of an Amnesty campaign, yet at its annual general meeting in 2013 Amnesty UK passed a resolution recognising that the human rights of sick and disabled people in the UK had been dreadfully compromised.

The convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which the UK ratified in 2009, makes provisions for access to support services, personal assistance access to social protection, and poverty reduction programmes for disabled people and their families. The Government’s cold and callous welfare changes are in direct contravention of all those stipulations. The time has come for a grown-up debate, to move beyond the smearing of poor, disabled and chronically sick people—demonising them should stop. We need to move to a debate on how we design a society where all UK citizens are supported and given opportunities to contribute. I utterly support today’s debate and I will vote in favour of the motion.

12:14

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important subject, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).

As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I understand that the benefit system is an extraordinarily complex one. The system was born out of a desire to provide support to those who need it the most. However, years of mismanagement, and well-intentioned but ill-thought-out additions and changes, have left the system in a shocking mess. Listening to accounts of mismanagement, wrong payments and the relegation of people who are taught that there is no role for them in the workplace has shown me that reform is not only important but essential.

This Government’s reforms offer responsible protection for those who need it the most, while supporting those who can move back to work. First, let me say that this Government are committed to supporting those with disabilities. Here in the UK, we are committed to spending more than £40 billion a year, which is more than Italy, Germany or France spend, and is a fifth more than the European average.

We have taken the strategic view that it is not enough to think of disability as a singular issue. Instead, we have chosen to work across Departments to look at transport, employment and social involvement. The Opposition enjoy flashing big figures; they go for the headline and do not fill in the detail. Let me give them a few figures to consider while we look at the rationale. The amount of disability living allowance underpaid per year is £190 million; the amount of DLA lost through fraud and error between 1997 and 2010 was £10 billion; and the amount that welfare payment increases between 1997 and 2010 cost the average hard-working family per year is £3,000. These stark figures show that something has gone seriously wrong in our support system.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I note the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given, but does he recognise that in the UK in 2009 we spent 2.9% of our GDP on disability and sickness while nine of our OECD neighbours spent an average of 3.2% of their GDP? Far from spending more than our OECD partners, we spend less.

[Graham Evans]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was talking about the current spending. I also point out to him that in 2009, 1 million more people were in relative poverty; 500,000 more children were in relative poverty; 200,000 more pensioners were in relative poverty; 150,000 more people were unemployed; 25,000 more young people were unemployed; and 1.3 million fewer people were in work. These figures show that the Government’s policies are working.

I will return to my original point. When 71% of claimants are given indefinite awards, with no need for reassessment, it is no surprise that changes in conditions are not picked up. In fact, a third of people with an impairment or a long-term health condition in one year report that they do not have it a year later, according to the Office for National Statistics. People’s conditions and needs change all the time. It is no surprise that people feel that they have been paid off and forgotten when no one takes the time to look at how their lives have changed; it is no surprise that those with deteriorating conditions do not receive the support that they are entitled to; and it is no surprise that those who have conditions that are improving are not helped out of a state of dependency and back into work.

The personal independence payment, which is being introduced gradually to ensure that there is a responsible change to protect disabled people, will involve regular assessments. This means that people will receive funding that is tailored to their individual changing needs. In actuality, this will result in the proportion of people receiving the highest rate for both components increasing to 20%, and the proportion of people receiving at least one component at the highest rate increasing to 56%.

The Government’s Work Choice programme has already helped 9,500 people to move into employment. The new enterprise allowance will support disabled people moving into self-employment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), who is no longer in his place, gave us some good examples of that. The £15 million investment in the Access to Work scheme will ensure that small businesses do not have to bear the costs of additional aids or equipment when taking on disabled staff. This programme helps more than 30,000 disabled people to gain mainstream employment, and stay in employment, every year.

The steps taken by this Government bring back the core principles of the welfare system: to provide support where it is needed; and, just as importantly, to enable those who can go back to work to do so. I am proud to be a member of a Government who are taking logical steps to address the fact that each person is individual, that conditions change over time and that each person in Great Britain has a place in our society.

12:19

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans). This is not the first time that the House has called for an assessment of the cumulative impact of welfare reforms on disabled people, but this time it is being called for by not only disability organisations and the official Opposition, but by the more than 100,000 people who signed the War on Welfare petition. Like others in this House, I encourage and congratulate the people who signed it, and who made us bring this issue to the Floor of the House.

I recognise, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), that this is probably an historic occasion: it is the first time that disabled people have framed the agenda in this House. I hope that we can respect that, regardless of our views.

I recognise some of the good work that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), is trying to do, including with employers, to fulfil potential. His heart is probably—I was going to give a caveat, but I will not: his heart is in the right place. The difficulty that we all have is not with his heart, but with his and his Government’s proposals for welfare reform.

It is with sadness that I note that we are yet again asking for a cumulative impact assessment that the Government should have undertaken when they introduced their welfare reform package. Since then, there has been a pretty crude campaign of vilification of those in receipt of disability benefits. The Government have attempted to conflate the tiny proportion of claimants who defraud the system, with whom none of us in this House have any truck, with others. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale fell into that trap when he talked about fraud and error. Those are two completely different things. The Government have conflated those attempting to defraud the system with those legitimately in receipt of a range of benefits. As we all know in this House, that has resulted in an increase in disability hate crime.

I also feel sadness because the Prime Minister made the following commitment in 2010:

“people who are sick, who are vulnerable, the elderly—I want you to know that we will always look after you”.

He even assured us that cuts would be made in a fair way, and that we would ask

“those on higher incomes to shoulder more of the burden than those on lower incomes.”

Yet the reality is that disabled people lose nine times more than most others, according to the Centre for Welfare Reform, and those disabled people with greater needs sometimes lose up to 19 times more than other people.

Opposition Members are not against welfare reform; indeed, as many have pointed out today, we started it when in government. In opposition, we have offered on more than one occasion to work with the Government in a consensual way to try to find a way forward. I know from conversations with disabled people that they are not against welfare reform, but they are against what has happened over the past three years, because the welfare package fails on various counts.

The Prime Minister’s comments about looking after the most vulnerable run counter to the fact that the Government’s welfare package disproportionately affects disabled people, who are hit simultaneously by various changes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) pointed out. There is the employment and support allowance, universal credit, the bedroom tax, the benefit cap, the change from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, and the changes in social care provision that others have pointed out.

I want to turn briefly to PIP, because we were told that it would help the most severely disabled people. If that had been the outcome of the policy change, perhaps we could have understood it, but the Government started with a number and framed a policy around that number. The National Audit Office report published this morning is devastating; it shows that the Government went into a reform of benefits that affects the most disabled in our community without knowing where they were going, or how they would implement the reform. According to the report, on the first day of the claims process, the Government met their target, but when we get to the claims being passed to the assessment provider, that information is not recorded. The expectation is that assessments will be completed in 42 days, but 64 days is what is actually being delivered. Worst of all, the terminally ill—those who have a life expectancy of no more than six months—are having to wait 28 days. The Minister may tell me that that has changed, and I hope that it has, but it seems that a sixth of those people’s total lifespan will be used up while they are in the bureaucratic morass of the PIP assessment.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My right hon. Friend has described the effects of the Welfare Reform Act 2012; is she concerned that it was cast in a way that gives the Government scope, without the need for further primary legislation, to make serious changes to terms and interpretations relating to the benefits that we are talking about, including PIP? With the changes that the Chancellor is promising in relation to annually managed expenditure, there will in future be more times when a number is fixed on, and people are squeezed off benefit to reach it.

[Mrs McGuire]

Yes. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I am delighted that he has made his point.

The Minister got quite agitated just now. I hope that he will give us some facts and figures about the implementation of PIP, because there has been a wall of silence. We all know what is happening in our constituencies, but we are accused of giving anecdotal evidence; he is in a position to give us the real evidence.

Since 2010, it obviously has not mattered what was said to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about his welfare reforms. He has become a victim of his rhetoric and is obsessed by the idea of his legacy. We used to have beneficiaries of the social security system; now many people feel that they are victims of that system. I ask the Secretary of State to put his cumulative impact assessment where his reforms are. I say to him, “Do the assessment, and prove me and 100,000 people out there totally wrong, if you have the courage.” I say categorically that if he will not or cannot do that, we are entitled to ask why he is still in his job.

12:27

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire). I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this debate and representing the 104,000 petitioners. The National Audit Office report published this morning on the implementation of PIP is a disappointment, but it is important to point out, at the outset, that the report talks about the implementation, rather than the policy aims. That is important. The report is not a criticism of the policy aims. It makes it very clear that it is far too early to give any view of the implications of the policy change that is being implemented through PIP.

This issue and this debate are framed in the context of the idea that changes to the welfare state are being undertaken in response to the need for austerity. I would argue that the issue is far more important than that; it is very important that it is dealt with, not because of austerity but despite it, because we have a failing welfare system. Anybody in this Chamber who argued that, prior to 2010, we had a system that we could be proud of would be very brave indeed. It is to the credit of the Government that the welfare reform agenda is being implemented not primarily to save money, but to ensure that the system does not trap people in a way that is unproductive and unfair.

Today’s debate highlights the significant problem that the Opposition have in relation to welfare reform. When I spoke to Welsh Labour Members last night, I was surprised to hear that they were on a one-line Whip for this debate. I am staggered by that, and I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) here. Given that the Welsh Labour Government have produced significant documents—they are not particularly impressive, when one reads the detail—complaining about the impact of welfare reform in Wales, I would have expected Labour Members from Wales to highlight their concerns in a debate as important as this one. Surprisingly, they are not here. Perhaps that is because they know full well that the Labour party is committed to a zero-growth spending review. We have heard Members express a lot of passionately held points of view today; it is important to point out that in a zero-growth spending review, it is very difficult to envisage any increase in the welfare budget. That is a point that any honest Member should be happy to make from the Opposition Benches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) highlighted the fact that work capability assessments, the abolition of which the motion calls for, have been changed and reformed throughout the Government’s period in office. Most of the recommendations of Professor Harrington’s reviews have been accepted, and the number of complaints coming through my constituency office has reduced. The implication of Labour Members’ speeches is that there should be no work capability assessments whatsoever, although I do not think that that is Labour’s policy. Are they saying that there should or should not be some sort of work capability assessment? If we have work capability assessments, as I believe that we should, any responsible Government should obtain medical advice from experts and implement their recommendations, which is exactly what the Government are doing.

Is the system perfect? Clearly not yet. Is it a problem that 40% of cases are won on appeal? I take it as a badge of pride when I win an appeal, but of course the figure of 40% is too high. However, we are implementing the changes that have been recommended, and it is irresponsible to call for the abolition of any work capability test because that is not in keeping with the whole purpose of welfare reform—to target support at the poorest in society.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington talked about the impact of removing the spare room subsidy—the so-called bedroom tax—on people with disabilities, and Labour Members told us that the policy has had a tremendous effect in many local authorities throughout England. I take a keen interest in the issue and regularly speak at length with my local authority in north Wales. Figures for Conwy county borough council and Denbighshire county council, which are both close to my constituency, show that the discretionary housing funding will probably not be spent in full and that rent arrears in north Wales housing associations are falling in two out of three cases. The statistics shows that more than two thirds of discretionary housing awards have been made because of a need arising owing to factors outside welfare reform. From listening to Opposition Members, one would think that every single change is having a huge impact, yet figures from a Labour-controlled local authority clearly show that that is not the case.

The Work programme is a success. It attempts to treat people as individuals and is getting people back to work. However, on getting people back to work, I want to highlight a disgraceful fact. Wales has European-funded projects that give people training and skills, and ensure that they get closer to the workplace, yet the Welsh Labour Government have denied any Work programme client access to those training programmes. If Labour were genuine about helping people back into work, they would allow disabled people in Wales who need training and support to access those programmes.

12:33

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Just after 1970, when I was first elected, I remember speaking in a debate about social security with Sir Keith Joseph, the arch-right winger of the Heath days. We all believed at the time that he was going to hit the poor, and of course—in a marginal way, compared with today—he did. However, remarkably, in the Macmillan era and even the in Heath-Keith Joseph era, the welfare state was by and large a status quo. I have to say—I will probably never say it again—that even in the Thatcher years this chaos did not happen. She did a lot of things—she privatised all the public utilities, smashed the pits and all the rest of it—but, by and large, we never had capability assessments or a march by 3,000 blind and disabled people, which was what heralded the beginning of this coalition.

I had never seen such a march. I was on crutches at the time, having had a hip replacement, so I thought that as I qualified for the march, I had better get on it. Blind people were telling me then about what was likely to happen. I hardly believed them, but we now know the truth about the mess that has been created for the people I met at the Atos headquarters last Wednesday. It was not a trade union gathering; it was a different gathering altogether. There were more wheelchairs than there were police. Fancy speaking to a crowd of 70 to 100 people surrounded by wheelchairs. Those people had been crippled for years. Like my constituent, David Cowpe, many of them had been turned down after their work capability assessment, although they were too disabled even to get out of their wheelchair without help.

That crowd I was speaking to was totally different from those at the meetings I took part in at Tower Hill, Pentonville jail and wherever. These were disabled people who wanted someone to speak up for them. There are many of them in the House of Commons today. We met some this morning and there are loads of them—I am told I am not supposed to refer to them—in the Public Gallery, and they are different. This country is made of money, so we are told. The Prime Minister tells us that money is no object—that was what he said—and that was what I told those people last Wednesday. I said, “You know, I wish he’d say money was no object for disabled people.”

It really is a scandal. When I used to do the tribunals for the National Union of Mineworkers, I would represent five people and there would be probably only nine in total at a meeting in Nottingham, but we regarded that as a busy day. Now, with this business of Atos, that lousy, rotten firm that is in charge—for a while anyway, so I am told, before it moves on to other pastures—literally hundreds of thousands of people are being turned down. When I represented people at tribunals, it used to be that we would have an appeal in four weeks and I would be off to Nottingham with those miners, but David Cowpe had cancer and waited 10 months for an appeal, and he died before he had a chance. It is high time that people understood that that is the chaos we are living in today and got rid of this mess.

We need to realise that this is a country with enough money to give those on millionaires’ row a tax cut of more than £150,000 a year. There is enough money for Trident and all kinds of things that Governments love to do, but here we are with an ageing society and a lot more disabled people—what is wrong with that; we should be providing for them—and the reason they are on demonstrations like they never were before is that they are desperate, desperate people who want us to do something to help them. That is what this debate is really about. It is about that Atos demonstration last week when people were saying—not cheering me on, but asking me—“Dennis, do something about it,” and that is what we should be doing today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

12:40

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Follow that, as they say. I promise not to play to the Gallery, but it may disappoint the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) to know that I share his poor, working-class credentials.

The motion has three elements. The first calls for a cumulative impact assessment on a wide range of social services, which would be extremely complex. The spectrum of disability alone includes those that are unchanging, those that are progressive—there is constant change—and those that are variable, such as multiple sclerosis and bipolar disorder, where people have peaks and troughs, feeling well and extremely unwell. Such an assessment would also have a wide range of contributors, including local authorities—in particular social services departments —children and adult services, the Departments for Work and Pensions, for Communities and Local Government and for Health, care homes and charities. Collating all that information would be an enormous task.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to Remploy and I want to relate a visit that I made to a large Marks & Spencer distribution centre in Castle Donington with which Remploy works closely. It does not provide jobs itself, but it works in partnership with Marks & Spencer, directing people with a wide range of disabilities, including ex-servicemen who had suffered injuries, people with disabilities and everything between those two points that could possibly be imagined. There was a very good training element, with each newly employed person going through the training centre and having their strengths and weaknesses observed so that they could be placed appropriately. I would like to see such a system replicated throughout the country.

We must also remember carers in general, but in particular children who care for disabled parents and have duties to perform before they go to school in the morning, often coming home at lunchtime rather than taking part in school activities, and shopping on the way home. They prepare meals and take on all the other domestic responsibilities. It is a huge burden for young children. When they come to the end of statutory education, they have a big decision as to whether to go on to further education and think about their future career or to stay at home and care for their disabled parent. They need special attention.

For the findings of such a wide-ranging assessment to be useful they would have to be collated over a set period, and it is too soon in the welfare reform process for the results to be meaningful.

The second part of the motion, in calling for the abolition of the work capability assessment, rather conflicts with the element of the motion that says that we should improve support for people who are not in work. The whole purpose of the assessment is to look at the level of disability of each individual and the impact that it has on their work capability, and, where possible, to provide opportunities for them to acquire work skills and get back into work and achieve independence, which is infinitely preferable to being benefit dependent.

The problems with the Atos contract are well documented and have already been referred to. The work capability assessments are important and should continue, but accuracy is essential, waiting times should not be excessive, there should be proper use of supporting medical opinion, and assessors should be of a sufficient calibre to ensure that the process is carried out accurately, helpfully and properly. Standards throughout the country need to be consistent, and we need to recognise that some people have lifelong conditions that will never change or improve, so there is no point in their having repeat assessments.

People with learning disabilities need extra help to get into work. A very good project in my constituency does exactly that. I am running out of time; I do not know where it has all gone. Welfare reform is right in principle. We should support those who cannot work— that is non-negotiable—but identify those who can and should.

12:45

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

This is one of the most important debates that we have had, certainly since I have been a Member of Parliament, because it concerns 11.3 million people who are the most vulnerable in our society. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and those who signed the petition on securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on providing time for it. We know that the mark of a decent society is how it treats the vulnerable—the sick, the disabled, the elderly. There may be a case for reforming welfare and introducing reforms, but reforms that impact most on the disabled are wrong. I will not go into the statistics because they have already been referred to, but I think it is universally accepted that the benefit cuts hitting the disabled mean that they are about 30% worse off than other people. My mind boggles as to why we should put the greatest burden of cuts on the disabled and the unwell—the vulnerable in society. That is why I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter.

I want to refer in detail to the effects on deafblind people. The changes—the stress from the form filling, the assessment and the convoluted process, and the changes in the payments—are having a tremendous impact on the 365,000 people who are both deaf and blind. A mother of two deafblind adult sons describes how one of them uses the disability living allowance. She says:

“I worry that MPs don’t understand how deafblind people communicate and just how important communicating is to them. It can be very lonely and frustrating for the deafblind person and can ultimately affect the deafblind person’s mental health. My eldest son uses his DLA to pay for his 1-to-1 support; that money gets him the life he wants. Before he had the right support, he exhibited very difficult behaviours because he was frustrated.”

She says that he could cause danger to himself and to others, but when he got his one-to-one support, his life completely changed. She continued:

“My son is a sociable friendly man who is now able to take a full part in everyday life and make decisions for himself, the difference is amazing! It would have been a waste of money”—

and obviously cost more—

“to place him in the secure residential accommodation.”

He is now much happier and his family is happier as well. We must always remember that saving money at one end might mean spending more money later and so be a false economy.

I also want to mention the closure of Remploy factories. I used to visit my Remploy factory in Bolton all the time. The people there were really happy to have a job to go to. They wanted to work and earn a living, not to take state benefits. The closures were very much an ideological decision by the Government. There were difficulties in the Remploy system, but they were with the management at the top of the hierarchy, who were keeping a lot of the money. The changes that were needed to make Remploy more effective should have been made at the top, where money was being wasted. The ordinary disabled person working in the factory was not causing that waste. Rather than looking properly at how to make Remploy work better, the Government managed to abolish it. As a result, many of the people who worked there have ended up unemployed. They are sitting at home, claiming state benefits and getting incredibly depressed, because—let us face it—with so many people unemployed, their chances of getting a job are negligible.

Lastly, I want to talk about work capability assessments and Atos. Much has been said about that in Parliament. My constituent, Mr Jason Froggatt, lost his job because of illness, but Atos then said that he was fit to work but needed to do so near a toilet—that was actually in the assessment. He, his wife and their son now face losing their home because they do not have enough money. I wrote to the Secretary of State a few weeks ago about that case but am yet to receive a response. We have heard many other examples of people who are very ill being told that they are fit for work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

12:51

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and all those responsible for securing this debate, which deals with the concerns of real people out there in the real world. I should clarify, for the benefit of the Opposition Whip—his knuckles are about to explode in anticipation—that I intend to join my hon. Friends in the Lobby this afternoon.

Life experiences and events change and influence our lives. I want to talk about two events in my life that influenced my political thinking significantly. The first was being unemployed for three years, through no fault of my own, simply because I had been blacklisted as a result of my trade union activities. I was not a shirker, because I wanted to work and support my young family, but I could not get employment.

The second experience was talking with a former Remploy worker who was about to lose his job. I remember him telling me that he was fit to work but that his face was so badly disfigured that he could not go out in public without getting a terrible reaction. I remember him saying, “Mr Sheridan, where can I work? Where can I go? If I get on a bus, people will get off. If I go into a restaurant, people will walk out. So where do I go?” The only enjoyment that man had was going out in his disabled person’s car to get some privacy. That was taken away from him. This is about treating people with respect and dignity. The people who conduct the Atos assessments do not take those things into consideration.

When I was unemployed and trying to look after my young family, I was not a shirker, as some Conservative Members might have portrayed me. This debate shows how putting workers against the unemployed and public against private is a sinister but typical policy of the coalition Government.

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was a former shadow spokesperson from his party who used the word “shirker.”

[Jim Sheridan]

Well, whoever said it, I was certainly not a shirker, because I was desperate for work but could not get it.

I look at the Minister and must say that—I sincerely hope this will not damage his career, or indeed my reputation—as Conservatives go, he is quite a decent man. I hazard a guess—it is no more than that—that he would not mind being shifted to another portfolio. Those on benefits are demonised, and no consideration is given to the circumstances behind why they are claiming. There are some in this place and in the popular press who are obsessed with demonising people on welfare or disability benefits, which I think is unfortunate.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

rose—

[Jim Sheridan]

I hope I did not offend the Minister.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman might have destroyed his career by saying such nice things about me. I wanted to say that he is very generous.

[Jim Sheridan]

The Minister is safe in that regard, because I do not hold out any hopes for career prospects.

Welfare reform has not only encouraged the “shirker” myth about the sick and the disabled, but made life increasingly difficult for them. The Minister will probably say that the Government have put in place this legislation to ensure that the right people receive benefits, but it is a tactic to divert attention from the gross abuse of power by those with money in this country. Reference has already been made to the obsession with people receiving welfare benefits, but for those with money—the tax avoiders and evaders—life goes on as normal. If only a fraction of the resources used and the time spent on chasing down those on welfare benefits was diverted to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, some people might understand the rationale behind it.

Like many colleagues here today, I have had many constituents come to me with various concerns about the proposed reforms. There are so many different problems that it is difficult to know where to start. The move from DLA to PIP has been a particular concern. Since that move began, fewer than one in six people who have applied have had their claims decided. As other Members have indicated, some people have died before the process is complete. That reminds me of the cases some years ago when people were dying after being diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer but while still waiting for compensation. At that time, their claim died with them.

Inclusion Scotland has highlighted the case of the father of an applicant who was told that they would have to wait at least 10 months for any kind of decision, and perhaps even for a first assessment. A constituent of mine who is undergoing cancer treatment has been told that the eight-week time frame given by DWP is an unrealistic amount of time in which to process an application and offer an assessment slot. When my staff called the MPs’ hotline, they were told that they simply cannot process the number of applicants as there are not enough staff. They also say that most people who have applied for PIP will not be entitled to it, even before individual cases have been looked at. If that is the mindset of the staff processing the applications, it is hard to see how balanced decisions will be made.

When people finally hear about their assessments, there is not much hope. Only 15.4% of new claims have received a decision, and only 12,654 of the 220,300 people who have made a new claim since April 2013 have been awarded some rate of PIP. A constituent of mine got in touch because her father had been diagnosed with lung cancer. Because there is a possibility that his treatment will work, giving him a life expectancy of up to five years, he has not been classed as terminally ill. He is not well enough to attend a medical assessment and so will have to wait longer for a home visit. It appears that letters from his GP, cancer doctor and cancer hospital are not enough to prove the seriousness of his illness.

Like many people in this House and outside it, I had the pleasure of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) explain clearly where this Government’s priorities lie. Even under Mrs Thatcher we did not treat people like this. I wonder why, even given these austere times, we are now treating people in this country in that way.

12:59

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this debate.

I pay special tribute to the campaigners who are with us today, particularly John McArdle and Susan Archibald, who have travelled from Scotland and who have done so much over a long period for disabled people’s rights and well-being. The main thing we talked about this morning at the breakfast meeting was the ongoing Atos debacle and the consequences for the lives of sick and disabled people of the abject failure of the work capability assessment. I was told that in 2011 over 10,000 people died within six weeks of being placed in the work-related activity group or being found fit for work.

We have known for a long time that there are major problems with the assessment process, and I am sure that all MPs have seen constituents in their surgeries about it, but to get it so very wrong so many thousands of times frankly beggars belief. The Government need to take their head out of the sand and start listening to the experiences of very sick and disabled people whose lives are being made worse by the callous disregard of the system.

The other key issue is the roll-out of personal independence payments and the expected reduction in the number of eligible claimants. The Government are looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope. Raising the bar on eligibility will not make anyone any less sick or any less disabled; it will just make it more difficult for them to function in society and place more pressure on those on whom they rely for their care and support.

Several times now I have met a great group of young people with learning disabilities in Fraserburgh. They call themselves People First, they are very vocal, and they are very concerned about the impact of welfare reform on their lives. A number of them have had problems with Atos assessments and the benefits system more generally. Most of them have at various times been on courses to improve their employability, some have done work experience placements, and some have had supported employment, but the challenge is to find employers who can take them on and give them a proper job. I have been working with employers and talking to social enterprises, but the number of opportunities does not match the number of adults looking for work, and the work capability assessment does not cut them any slack. It is all very well to place adults with learning difficulties in the work-related activity group, but we need to be honest with them about the real barriers they face in the workplace.

Almost all the adults I meet in this context are living at home with older parents or living in supported accommodation with a lot of family support. Carers are having to attend assessments, fill out forms, and answer questions. If people find a work placement, they have to get support in doing so, yet carers are also having to pick up the tab if people are sanctioned. Research by the Scottish Government on the sanctions regime shows that the most vulnerable claimants are the most likely to be sanctioned, and that is very worrying.

In Scotland, a cumulative impact assessment has already been carried out. It shows that £4.5 billion of cuts are resulting from welfare reform, but it is much harder to assess how much of that is falling directly and indirectly on disabled people. Citizens Advice Scotland estimates that disabled people stand to lose £1 billion in benefits payments alone, but, in a sense, that is the easy bit to calculate. It is important to understand that it is not just changes to disability benefits that affect disabled people. We debated the bedroom tax at length yesterday, and I will not dwell on that, except to repeat that 80% of households in Scotland affected by the bedroom tax are the home of a disabled person. The vast majority of people paying the bedroom tax are disabled, so the steps we have taken in Scotland to mitigate its impact will primarily benefit disabled people. Similarly, the decision to mitigate the cut in council tax benefit for over 500,000 households will be helping disabled people, along with other low-income households. However, working disabled people—probably about half the working-age disabled population—are also likely to have been badly affected by changes to tax credits, especially if they have children. Disabled people are more likely to be in part-time or low-paid jobs and therefore more likely to depend on extra support, and they are likely to be worse off overall because of changes to the tax and benefits system.

Citizenship and dignity need to be at the heart of our tax and benefits system. No one in this room today can say with any certainty that the relative affluence that we enjoy might not end at any time due to unforeseen health problems. We do know, though, that the majority of us will become carers at some point in our lives. In that respect, we are all stakeholders in this debate, and we all want to know that there is a safety net should we need it. Over recent years, that safety net has been eroded to the point that it is no longer functioning.

One of the most profoundly disheartening experiences for me as an MP since being elected in 2010 has been the relentless way in which disabled and sick people have been vilified and stigmatised in the public discourse about welfare reform. Those who had very little responsibility for the financial collapse and subsequent economic problems have nevertheless had to carry the can. The attempt to discredit disabled people in order to justify harsh and punitive cuts in their already fairly paltry incomes is quite shameful. It appals me that the most disadvantaged have been asked to pick up the tab disproportionately for the profligacy of others. As we look to the future, we see further cuts of £12 billion, at least, promised in the years ahead. For disabled people in Scotland, the choice between two very different futures is opening up before them: one with decisions on welfare made in Scotland, or one where further cuts slash their incomes even more. That choice must seem very stark indeed.

If this motion passes, it will be the third time this year that the Government have been defeated on a welfare-related motion. On two previous occasions, the Government have ignored Parliament in this respect; perhaps today it will be third time lucky. The cumulative impact assessment that the motion calls for is just the first step. I urge the Government to listen.

13:05

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who always makes very informed contributions on this subject.

This is the third time this week we have debated issues to do with benefits. In all these debates, the position of people with disabilities should be one of the major considerations. Earlier in the week, we debated the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index in the uprating of benefits. That has a big impact on many people with disabilities, who, in effect, will be getting less than they would have if we had kept to the old system of uprating. Yesterday, as has been said, we discussed the bedroom tax, which is another policy of this Government that disproportionately impacts on people with disabilities.

Today, as a result of the campaigning work of many disabled people and many disabled people’s organisations, including Disabled People Against Cuts and the WOW petition campaign, we are debating a motion that has come about as a result of the work of people campaigning on these issues who are at the sharp end and have disabilities themselves. It is a huge step forward that we are able to get debates of this nature. In the previous Parliament, before the reforms that led to the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee, there would have been no way for people outside campaigning on issues that they know about to get their words discussed in this place. I therefore strongly welcome this debate.

I was elected in 2005. Since the general election in 2010, I have seen a massive increase in the number of people with disabilities and those who are sick contacting my office because of the Government’s various welfare changes. I would like to focus on two constituents who have been in touch with me and, I think, illustrate routine problems of the kind that people are facing. My constituent John Scott was diagnosed with cancer in the summer of 2013 and sent in his application for personal independence payment soon afterwards. I raised his case in Parliament on 13 January, when he was waiting for his initial medical assessment. At that point, he had had no payment, never mind a decision in his case. Since then, he has been in for an operation and had his bladder removed owing to the extent of his cancer, and cancerous cells were found in the muscle tissue in his prostate. He is still recovering, but to date has not received a medical assessment to see whether he qualifies for a personal independence payment. He has therefore not had a payment since July last year, although he has obviously been struggling with household bills and accruing arrears, and has had to carry on without any assistance.

Another constituent, Brian McAllister, last year had his benefits stopped and was found fit to work by Atos. He put in an appeal and was placed in the work-related activity category. He believes that he should be in the support group, as he has an inoperable back problem and has also been diagnosed with brain injury and has related mental health issues. He is separated from his partner, but they have a child and therefore found it mutually beneficial that he stay in the house to supervise the child while his former partner was at work. However, the Department for Work and Pensions thought that they were co-habiting and sanctioned his benefits. We found out last week, of course, that one in five people in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance who are having their benefits sanctioned are disabled. My constituency office is increasingly having to deal with people who face that problem.

As a result of the fact that the DWP thought it inappropriate that my constituent stay in the house, he moved from Largs to Dalry—there are a number of miles between them—which has put more strain on the family and, obviously, led to more child care problems. He submitted an appeal against the decision to place him in the work-related group and he has been waiting four months for a decision. His paperwork was lost—which is quite common, as I am sure many Members are aware—and the case has been passed around the country. It has been dealt with in different offices in England and Scotland and he still awaits a decision. These are very normal cases, which any constituency Member will have come across. There is a very high success rate when people appeal and that rate is far higher when they get representation.

The Government have let down some of the most vulnerable people through their changes to the welfare system since 2010. They are also letting some people down at the most vulnerable point in their lives. I therefore support the motion, which calls for a cumulative impact assessment, and all those who are campaigning against the attacks on the sick, the vulnerable and the disabled.

13:11

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I want to humanise the debate somewhat. I spoke to a number of disabled people this morning and what they had to say was amazing. Over the past couple of years or so, my surgeries, like those of most Members present, have been visited by lots and lots of disabled people who want to discuss the benefits system. The reality is that many disabled people have given up. A lady said to me this morning, “Mr Lavery, do you understand what it’s like to be treated like an animal?” That rocked me. Why are disabled people being made to feel as if they are being herded into a corner and treated like animals?

That is how they feel. They do not even feel that they are counted as a statistic in life anymore, other than as being an embarrassment to society. They feel as if they are personal rejects—total outcasts from society—because they are disabled and unwell. We should not be making people feel like that in one of the richest countries in the world.

The attack on the disabled and the vulnerable is relentless. Disabled people, the sick, people who have been sick for many years and those who might have just become sick or disabled in the past few years need a voice. We should not forget that it is fantastic being able-bodied and well in health, but some of us are just around the corner from being poorly, disabled, sick, unwell or perhaps terminally ill. We should not forget that when we make decisions in this place to hammer the disabled and the vulnerable, because we could be next.

We should put ourselves in some of these people’s shoes: they become ill or have been ill; they attend test after test; and they attend the Atos centres, which are like the scene in “Little Britain” where “Computer says no.” There is no flexibility and they have to try to explain their problems to somebody who is not even medically qualified.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I apologise for interrupting a very passionate speech, but is my hon. Friend aware that the Department for Work and Pensions is facing a court case because of its failure to provide proper information and support to blind and partially sighted people whom they are supposed to be helping to get into employment?

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am very much aware of the fact that there are a number of cases proceeding through the courts, but as we have seen over the past couple of weeks the courts do not seem to be terribly in favour of the disabled or the disadvantaged.

I want us to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who face these tests. After they leave the test centre, they wait for weeks and weeks—in fact, they wait for months and months—for the envelope to drop through the door and tell them whether they have been accepted for benefits or not. Can Members imagine how these people, particularly those with mental health problems, feel every morning, waiting for that envelope?

People who are looking for employment and support allowance or jobseeker’s allowance are being sanctioned for different reasons. A constituent of mine was sanctioned by the DWP after he attended a hospital appointment because he has a severe heart condition. As a result of being sanctioned, he did not have any money to put food on the table for months. It has been suggested that people have been sanctioned when they are in a coma in a hospital bed in intensive care. Is that any way to treat ordinary human beings? The answer is, of course not.

Let us look at the other legislation that has been introduced. Just in the past few weeks, up to 50,000 people in this country had to pay the bedroom tax. A lady committed suicide because of the bedroom tax and then her family got a letter from this Government saying they were sorry, but she should not have had to pay because she was covered by the pre-1996 housing benefit regulations.

Universal credit is a failure. It has been rolled out in two or three places and is an absolute car crash, but it is not the DWP or Members of Parliament who are suffering; it is the disabled people who rely on these benefits who are anxious and suffering as a result of this Government’s absolute nonsense and chaotic organisation.

People who make ESA applications have to wait to learn whether they are in one group or the other. How many have appealed? I believe that 40% have appealed successfully, and others are waiting to appeal. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned how long they are waiting. People’s conditions change before their appeal is heard. It is utter nonsense. The way in which we are treating these people is an absolute disgrace.

A lot of facts and figures have been mentioned today. The 11.3 million disabled people—8% of the population—are bearing 29% of the cuts. Those with the severest disabilities—2% of the population—are bearing 15% of them. It is an absolute outrage.

To sum this up, people are dying as a result of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Disabled people are being evicted from their homes and people are being forced into the arms of unscrupulous lenders. Is this really the sort of country we want to leave to the next generation? This is IDS UK.

13:19

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and those who have campaigned so passionately for this debate to take place.

I want to read out a letter that was recently received by one of my constituents:

“Dear Miss HOLT,

You are now approaching the end of the 1st Stage of your Intensive Job Focused Activity. We hope that all the activity or training intervention completed so far has not only supported you to achieve your aspirations but has moved you closer to the job market.

You will shortly enter the 2nd Stage of your Intensive Job Focused activity.

Sessions and Workshops may vary depending on the centre you attend.”

The letter was sent to my constituent Sheila Holt on 30 January. I am sad to have to inform the House that Sheila will not be able to attend the second stage of her intensive job-focused activity because she has been in a coma since December. Members of her family have repeatedly informed the DWP and Seetec that she is not well, but those organisations have continued to harass them.

To recap, Sheila has suffered from severe bipolar disorder since childhood and has regularly had traumatic experiences. She has not been in employment since she was 16, but she was pushed into the Work programme before Christmas. She found it extremely difficult, and she was also concerned about having to pay more tax because of changes to council tax benefit. On 17 December, she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act, because she was struggling to cope. While in hospital, she had a heart attack, which caused her to be in coma. Now, at the end of February, I can report to the House that Sheila is still in a coma, but is in a stable condition in the Floyd unit at Birch Hill hospital. Her sister and family continue to visit her daily and, at their request, I have also visited her.

The important point is that before the election, the Prime Minister often toured the TV studios to talk about “broken Britain”. I must say that if his idea of fixing broken Britain means hounding disabled people suffering from mental breakdowns and harassing their distressed relatives, I would prefer the broken Britain that previously existed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the bedroom tax that will punish disabled people who need extra rooms for carers, and the scrapping of crisis loans on which disabled people rely. This Government have demonstrated that helping disabled people is simply not a priority. I am also concerned by the continuing uncertainty about the future of the independent living fund. The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People has brought to my attention that at least 873 people in Greater Manchester currently rely on it. Will the Minister tell us whether that fund will remain available for disabled people?

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will not find anybody in this House who is more keen on welfare reform, but to make such reforms the right values must be in place. From what we have seen during the past three years, it is pretty clear that this Government cannot be trusted to reform welfare fairly, and people such as Sheila Holt are paying the price. I want to end with a comment made by Sheila’s sister Linda, who said:

“Sheila can never live a full life again”.

That is a reminder that although the people of this country will have an opportunity to get rid of this Government next May, the damage that the Government are doing will last for decades.

13:23

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly in this debate, and I thank the hon. Members who arranged it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said in the opening speech, in this debate we in Parliament are giving voice to the thousands of disabled people and many others throughout the country who are concerned about the impact of Government welfare policies on those with disabilities.

Like many hon. Members, in preparing for this debate I thought that the most useful thing I could do was to highlight the experience of, and briefly quote, some organisations who work daily with disabled people in my constituency. The welfare rights officer at the Royal National Institute of Blind People Scotland, whose Edinburgh office is in my constituency, has told me:

“The main issues that we are seeing in the RNIB service are long delays in the applications for PIP. So far I have only had one decision out of 9 claims made between July and November of last year… Clients making PIP claims are waiting 3 months and longer for medical assessments…also, if assessment has been carried out still not getting a decision from DWP.”

I am sure that hon. Members are aware of the report published today by the National Audit Office, the spending watchdog, which has highlighted, as one would no doubt understand, that such experiences are not unique. In its words, thousands of disabled people are facing “distress and financial difficulties”, because claims for the new personal independence payment are taking too long to process. Most claimants are waiting more than three months for their cases to be decided, rather than the target of 71 days, while terminally ill patients are waiting up to a month, instead of getting a decision, as they are meant to do, within 10 days.

I have been told by Waverley Care, a charity that provides care and support to people living with HIV or hepatitis C, that as a result of the overall benefit changes, the case load of staff dealing with benefits has increased dramatically, especially regarding appeals. It says that an increasing number of people are going to it for help because they find it too daunting to deal with the Department for Work and Pensions. Demand has also gone up sharply for the food parcels that it distributes, as has demand for help from its hardship funds. Typically, it has found that people are struggling to pay for food, toiletries and fuel. One reason why the demand for food parcels has increased is that people are running out of money between benefit payments, often because they have been switched to a benefit on which they receive less money, but also because, in the process of being switched from one benefit to another, there is a gap of two to three weeks during which they do not receive any money.

I have received similar information and reports from HIV Scotland, and reports from Citizens Advice Scotland again highlight that such experiences are not unique to my constituency, as I am sure hon. Members would understand and expect. I have spoken not only to organisations, but directly to disabled people who are going through those experiences daily. On the national day of demonstrations about Atos, I went along to join disabled people at the demonstration outside its Edinburgh headquarters, which happens to be situated in my constituency.

Like colleagues across the House, I of course hear the experiences at my surgery every week of people whose lives are being turned upside down by the impact of Government welfare policies, of people who are sanctioned without any apparent cause and—in relation to all the problems of the work capability assessment procedure, which many hon. Members have mentioned—of people who are rejected in spite of having the clearest medical advice that they are incapable of doing the work that they are expected to do.

I contacted Inclusion Scotland, which represents a wide range of organisations involved with disability issues, and I am afraid that its report just highlights the fact that although we have so far seen chaos—as well as inhumanity and, bluntly, cruelty—the way Government policies are going suggests that the worst is yet to come. It highlights that the consequences of those policies, taken together, will be incredibly damaging for so many disabled people in this country. In Scotland alone, 80,000 working-age disabled people will lose some or all of the mobility allowance to which they would otherwise have been entitled if the DLA entitlement criteria were still used, while 90,000 fewer disabled people in Scotland will qualify for the assistance with their care needs and daily living costs to which they would otherwise have been entitled under the DLA eligibility criteria.

The same experience is of course true across the entire UK. Under this Government’s welfare reforms during the past four years, we have had chaos, misery and a bureaucratic nightmare, as well as a waste of money with the bedroom tax, as we are increasingly seeing throughout the country. The policies are fundamentally wrong and they need to be reversed.

13:29

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Like other Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this important debate. I also pay a huge tribute to the petition proposers and supporters, and all the people who are watching this debate, either in person or on Twitter. They will have noticed that the number of Members on the Government Benches has gone up to three—it was two until a few moments ago. Sadly, that reflects the priority that Government Members give to this issue. I pay tribute in particular to Francesca Martinez, who has done so much to bring forward the petition that we are discussing this afternoon.

I will focus on the work capability assessment, which was introduced by the last Administration in 2008 and has so very clearly failed people in need. The British Medical Association’s GP committee voted unanimously in 2012 that, after four years, the policy had been a failure. It was clear when it was introduced that it was part of an attempt to appear to be hard on benefits and to be clamping down. It happened at the same time as things were being made harder for lone parents, with more and more conditions being piled on. It is part of the rhetoric about the deserving poor versus the undeserving poor that, sadly, we still hear today.

I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), on taking up her post as shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, used the opportunity of her first interview to say that she would be tougher than the Tories on people on benefits.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West did not say that. She said that she would be tougher on welfare spending, not on people on benefits.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the clarification, but, to be honest, it does not make much difference. In my view, benefits should be payable on the basis of need, not on the basis of an arbitrary cap. It is on precisely that point that the official Opposition and I part company. It will be deeply disappointing if the official Opposition abstain on this motion. There is a lot of sound and fury from Labour Members, but that must be followed through in a vote. I cannot understand why the official Opposition would not vote for this motion.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there are some forms of welfare spending that we should bring down? In my view, one of those is the excessive amount that is paid to private landlords through housing benefit. I am certainly in favour of reducing that form of welfare spending. Is she not?

[Caroline Lucas]

I am very much in favour of that if the hon. Lady wants to put it under the heading of welfare spending, but I am not sure that most people would. We can argue about the precise language, but the official Opposition will demonstrate later this afternoon that they are sitting on their hands. That is a great shame.

Let me make some progress, because the purpose of my speech is not primarily to attack the official Opposition, but to attack the Government. This afternoon, the Government have witnessed hon. Members giving case after case from their own experiences of the impact of the welfare reforms that the Government have introduced. I will talk about what the figures mean for Brighton and Hove, and tell the House about the local advice agencies in Brighton and Hove that came together to produce a powerful report on their experiences of working with ill people and people with disabilities. Those agencies include the local citizens advice bureau, Advice Brighton and Hove, Age UK and the Federation of Disabled People.

To illustrate the reality behind the figures, I will talk about two local case studies from Macmillan that were included in the report. It mentions Mr C, a 56-year-old single man who, following cancer of the spine, lost his mobility and became confined to a wheelchair. Mr C was forced to stop work owing to ill health and constant pain. Macmillan made contact to start the PIP application process last September. To my knowledge, it is still not resolved. At the same time, an application was made for ESA. That application followed a similar path to the PIP application. Mr C is still being paid the assessment phase rate of just £71.70 a week, with no information from Atos as to when it will assess him further. Four months on, we are still counting and he is still waiting.

Macmillan also relayed the story of Mr J, a 32-year-old who is suffering from advanced bowel cancer and who came to the charity for help. It took more than 10 weeks for him to be assessed. His wife was acting as his full-time carer because he was so ill. She was also looking after their baby and young child. The report states:

“Throughout this process both Mr and Mrs J were very anxious and suffering serious financial hardship. Mr J at this time was seriously ill, vomiting day and night plus major issues re fatigue due to chemotherapy etc. Both also felt throughout the period that they were not believed and had been labelled scroungers and benefit cheats by the DWP.”

The work by Advice Brighton and Hove makes it clear that people who are applying for PIP—some of the most vulnerable people—are being left without adequate finances. That is having a massive impact on their physical and emotional well-being. The cases in the report are dreadful, but they are no longer surprising. I have multiple examples of sick and disabled constituents who have been awarded no points, but have then been assessed for benefits under the Government’s regime.

The DLA regime is being tightened, even for disabled children such as my five-year-old constituent who has cystic fibrosis and needs constant 24-hour care to prevent her from falling and being a danger to herself and others. Her DLA has been cut from the higher to the lower rate. Just before Christmas, her parents asked for that to be reconsidered, but it still has not happened. As well as the loss of essential financial support, the family have lost their eligibility for things such as the blue badge.

Another of my constituents has, at last, got a date for a medical assessment in March, after submitting her application in August last year. In the meantime, funding for her electric wheelchair has been stopped. She managed to get funding for three months through the council’s discretionary fund, so she has not lost it yet, but she is extremely worried about what will happen if her claim is not processed in time.

I hope that the House will forgive me for taking up a little more time, but I want to give the example of a constituent who suffers from severe mental ill health. After months of delays, which caused her extreme anxiety, and with support workers very concerned about her suicidal state, an application for benefits that was submitted in August last year has only recently been resolved. She has rightly been placed in the support group, which means that the DWP recognises that she is definitely unable to work. Despite that, she was put through months of unnecessary anxiety.

Many people feel that the system is extremely counter-productive, in the sense that it makes people who are already ill much more ill. We hear example after example of that. I hope that the Government will not ignore them. If advice agencies are getting together to assess these problems, it must be about time that the Government looked at the impact of their own policies.

The conclusion of the report by my local advice agencies is that people are going through what they call “awful experiences” while waiting for their claims to be processed. Advisers are spending disproportionate amounts of time making calls to the DWP and the privatised PIP providers. That is frustrating and is a drain on resources. Claims that need to be followed up are taking more than double the amount of time that is usually allocated to such work. The advice sector in Brighton and Hove has made it very clear that the situation is untenable. It is looking to the Government to sort it out. In the meantime, it is asking for local contacts within the DWP and Atos so that organisations do not have to keep wasting huge amounts of time contacting DWP and Atos nationally. I hope that the Minister will respond to that specific request. It is quite a small one, but it would make a huge amount of difference to the time that is spent following up claims.

Finally, other hon. Members have given the shocking figures on the number of people who are dying while appealing against a decision that they are fit to work. Not every death will be related to fitness for work or to the stress of an unfair or wrong assessment. If a link could be proven, there would be a case for corporate manslaughter. However, Ministers cannot ignore the strong likelihood that significant numbers of people are being assessed as fit for work by the Government when, in reality, they are very close to death. That has to change.

13:30

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Like other Members, I have supported the call for a cumulative impact assessment and voted for it in this House. I do not know why it is so difficult for the Government to work out the impact of their policies. The people who are affected know what the impact is.

Jean and Jim are in their 50s, which is a typical age for illness to strike and is the age that has the highest uptake of many benefits. They are losing ESA because Jim’s contributory benefits are running out. Jean has part-time employment. That is another reduction of £91 a week in their household income after they have already lost his earnings. They have also been affected by the bedroom tax, because they are in a two-bedroom house. They have put a lot of money into that house over the years. When they first applied for discretionary housing payment, they were turned down because, with Jean’s earnings and Jim’s DLA, they had too much income to be eligible, despite his clear disability. I am glad to say that that has changed, due to extra money being made available.

That is what is meant by an impact assessment. That is the kind of interlocking effect that we are asking and reasonably expecting the Government to look at. Governments should look at what is happening to people. A piece of research was commissioned by the previous Government and published in 2011, but it has never been followed up by this Government. One very worrying statistic from that research is that 43% of the people who had been found fit for work were neither in employment nor on any out-of-work benefit after a year. The percentage of that cohort who were in work after a year, 23%, was hardly higher than it had been after three months, at 22%. That is a whole lot of missing people, and those are the sorts of facts and research that a Government should commission. It is disappointing that the Government chose not to follow through on those sorts of studies.

I will pre-empt what I know the Minister will say, which is, “Labour introduced the WCA, you introduced Atos, and therefore it is all your fault”, but that is not good enough for a number of reasons. In my maiden speech I mentioned ESA and WCA, and said that whoever formed the Government, I would be raising that issue. There have been points over the past nearly four years when the Government could have changed tack. They did not have to extend Atos’s contract or proceed with the migration of people from incapacity benefit to ESA as fast as they did, without looking again at what the first few years had told us.

The Government have been adamant until now that they had to carry out frequent reassessments of people, and they would not stop even when cases were clear cut. “Oh no, we have to do these reassessments”, we were told, but now they are suddenly in a panic because the assessors cannot cope, and it is, “Actually we don’t need to do these reassessments after all, but we won’t bother telling people that they might not be called up in the next few months. We won’t even bother telling MPs.” The Minister was here on Monday for Work and Pensions questions, and he never breathed a word about it.

The personal independence payment, however, is entirely this Government’s baby, and the problems go back to the beginning. This change was driven by finances, not by any research or understanding that a change needed to happen, and it had to be geared to financial savings. There was an urgent—and shortened—consultation on the changes, which many people complained about at the time. Despite the demographic changes, the straw man of too many people receiving DLA was erected, and there were assertions that DLA was granted constantly without medical evidence and that hardly anyone was ever reassessed. That ignored the big changes that had taken place in the previous 10 years, and the fact that increasingly, new awards were time limited.

If we start with poor evidence, and with arguments and assertions rather than fact, we end up with a flawed proposal. In 2013 we saw the start of the personal independence payment, and the delays and assessments have been growing exponentially. It is not just Atos, because Capita is having exactly the same problems. The flaw is in the system that has been set up.

People in the Government and elsewhere have said a number of things about why that is happening, and in December the Minister said to the Work and Pensions Committee that every single assessment for PIP was being audited internally. That suggests either a lack of training or a lack of confidence in their own staff. We are now told that each individual assessment is taking twice as long as expected, and that far more face-to-face assessments are having to take place. Might that be because the forms are not very good and the information is not coming in? Those are all things that a proper pilot would have tested. Instead of that, however, many thousands of new applicants—not just a few hundred—are being treated like guinea pigs in a system that the Government did not scope out or test properly; they did not look to see whether the people they had asked to do the assessments had the capacity to deliver them.

13:43

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for introducing it. I also thank the many groups and individuals who have taken the trouble to lobby their MPs and come to Parliament today and earlier this week. I give a special mention to Jason Roche from the Royal National Institute of Blind People in my constituency, who does such sterling work raising issues for the blind and partially sighted, to Simon Duffy from the Centre for Welfare Reform, and to Philip Connolly from Disability Rights UK. They have done a terrific job and we should acknowledge the efforts of disability activists and supporters in this campaign in collecting such a huge number of signatures to secure the debate.

The dedication shown by members of the public in getting this debate held in Parliament’s main Chamber indicates the strength of feeling and the widespread concern about the extent of the Government’s cuts. We are short of time, but there are issues such as housing, the bedroom tax, income cuts, policies such as changing RPI to CPI, the social care cuts highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), and the general cuts to public services that directly impact on people with disabilities. People with disabilities tend to rely more heavily on libraries and other public services, and it is ironic that in my constituency an organisation called EDPIP—the East Durham Positive Inclusion Partnership—which is a charity set up some years ago to support some of the most disadvantaged families, is closing today. That is another indicator of the pressure that disabled people, their families and carers are under.

This is a trust issue, and I hope the Minister will take note of that because the Prime Minister pledged that the cuts would be made fairly. He said that those with the broadest shoulders would bear the greatest burden, and that people who are sick, vulnerable and elderly would always be looked after. We must remember that the sick, the vulnerable and the disabled were not responsible for the economic crash, yet they seem to be bearing the brunt of the economic burden.

We have heard from other Members about the impact of the loss of income and services. Disabled people are suffering nine times more than those who are not disabled, and disabled people who require social care 19 times more. If the cuts had been made fairly, they would have fallen on the better off, and the changes contradict the promise made by the Prime Minister that those in greatest need of help would not suffer under austerity.

A measure of the civilisation of any nation is how well it treats the weakest members of society, and by that standard the Government are failing miserably. Rather than being protected in a time of hardship, sick and disabled people seem to have been targeted. The services they rely on are being attacked from all directions, resulting in greater inequalities, poorer health and a growing sense of anxiety, fear and trepidation over their future. The cuts have not been made fairly, and they are not spread evenly across public services or entitlements. The cuts have been targeted, with more than 50% falling in just two areas—benefits and local government—affecting sick and disabled people disproportionately.

[Ian Mearns]

Does my hon. Friend share my massive concern that the company that has been delivering the flawed—as we have heard many times today—work capability assessment, has now been given the job by the Government of harvesting the whole population’s health data from their GP practices?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I think that is cause for alarm. It certainly alarms me that Atos, which has been involved in the debacle of the work capability assessments, and which has raised concerns and asked to be released from its contract, is apparently being awarded the contract for the collection of highly sensitive care data from GPs, but that is another Minister’s responsibility.

Social care for children and adults makes up 60% of all spending over which local authorities have any control. The huge 40% reduction in local government funding spells disaster and will have a huge impact on adults and children who depend on vital public services. An interesting statistic is that by 2015 and the next general election, £8 billion will have been cut from social care in England—about 33% of the total. Last year, 320,000 fewer people received local authority brokered social care compared with 2005. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, one reason for that is the change in the eligibility thresholds that many local authorities have been forced to make. As well as being unjust and denying people adequate social care, that has unsustainable consequences. It is a false economy. By removing care in the community, we are putting pressure on other public services, for example accident and emergency.

At the same time, changes to benefits are having an appalling impact on those who rely on them. Other hon. Members have touched on the consequences of the abolition at the end of the year of the independent living fund, which currently supports more than 21,000 people with severe disabilities. Funding cuts already mean that in many areas services for sick and disabled people are reduced to a minimum.

With such large-scale and rapid change to the services that disabled people depend on, the Government owe it to those who have been affected to have an understanding of what the impact is. That is why I support the War on Welfare campaign’s call for the Government to commission an independent cumulative assessment of the impact of the changes in the welfare system on sick and disabled people and their families. We were not elected to this House to represent and fight for the interests of the powerful and privileged. Without a cumulative impact assessment, the Government will be failing in their responsibilities.

13:51

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I start by declaring an interest. My husband is in receipt of disability allowances.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), in his very powerful speech, said that we can be one day away from a disability. It was not even one day for me. One day, I went home to a husband who was perfectly fit and healthy and who lived an outdoor life—everything one could hope in terms of a fit and healthy man. Within a matter of days he was terminally ill. Life can change, but that change can be softened by knowing that financial security is there for the future. That is why this debate is so important.

I was disappointed when the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who has not been in his place for most of the debate, commented that I was the only Member from Welsh Labour in the Chamber. If he had stayed in his place he would have seen how many Welsh Labour Members are in the House working. They are not able to take part in the debate because it is time-limited. The comment was made that it was a one-line Whip. This is a Backbench Business debate: there is always a one-line Whip for Backbench Business debates. I want people who are watching this debate to understand that if people are not here today, it is due not to a lack of interest or a lack of understanding, but a lack of time. Those who perhaps are most passionate are the ones in the Chamber today, but those who are not here are giving us the space and time to make the important points we want to make.

We are here to ask for a cumulative impact assessment. People have said that no one knows the cumulative impact. I do not think that is true. I think we do know, because of the people who come through our doors. They are ringing our offices every day to tell us of the horrendous impact on their lives. I think the Government do not want to undertake an assessment because they cannot face the reality and horror of what they have done, and to be in denial gives them grounds to continue. We have been facing cuts to social care, cuts to disability benefits and cuts to housing benefits. What has been created is a climate of fear, a climate of social outcasts and a climate where the understanding of the sick and disabled has gone. They are seen to be the undeservingly ill. We need to focus on the human stories. Some 2% of the population have faced 15% of the cuts brought in by this Government, the same Government that gave tax cuts to the rich, and poverty and fear to the sick and the disabled.

I want to address briefly the work capability assessment. One of my constituents was told that she could work because she could make a shopping list. A lady who was unable to leave her house because she constantly needed to be able to go to the toilet was told that she could work from home making jewellery. The impact of the work capability assessment on people’s lives is horrific. There is a lack of respect for the terror in their lives. The humility they face in just trying to survive every day is being undermined and dismissed by such glib statements.

I want to look briefly at personal independence payment assessments. A lady who came into my surgery on Friday has multiple sclerosis but, because of her age, she will not face an assessment until 2017. She tells me that she wakes up every day with a black cloud of terror over her life. She fears that she will lose the money that allows her to live with some form of dignity. How can we justify that in this place? How can we allow people to live with such terror?

Finally, there is the bedroom tax. I want to talk about one lady, Mrs Evans. In 2009, her son was horrifically injured in a road traffic accident. She was forced to move from the property she had lived in since the 1970s to a specially disabled-adapted property. This has meant that she is no longer eligible for relief from the bedroom tax. To avoid it, she would have had to have lived in the same property since 1996. She has a two-bedroom property. Her son lives downstairs, but she needs to have one of the bedrooms for her daughter, who allows her some relief at night. Because she cares for her son and not her husband, she is not eligible for relief from the bedroom tax.

We are living in a cruel and callous world if we cannot support people’s lives when they have been destroyed by sickness and disability. That has to change.

13:57

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the House for not being here at the start of the debate. I was holding an advice bureau in my constituency, where all the problems that we have been discussing today came vividly to light. I compliment my hon. Friend on securing the debate and those who put the petition together.

I draw attention to what my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) have just said: disability can happen to any of us. At any time we can be a moment away from a major accident or a day or two away from the diagnosis of a terminal illness. The whole idea of not having an assessment of the effects of cuts in welfare spending on those who are sick and disabled is something that I feel very strongly about.

I hope the House agrees to the motion. If it does, I hope the Government accept that it is incumbent on them to carry out the independent review and assessment that is called for in the petition. It is a good part of the reality of parliamentary life now that groups of concerned citizens can get together and, with a sufficient number of signatures on a petition, force the House to address an issue. That is a good thing. Addressing an issue in a debate is only part of the process: what is done to follow up afterwards is important and I hope the Minister will understand the feelings that many people have on this matter.

Like many Members, I deal with a large number of cases relating to welfare payments, social security and disability. When the Government introduced an emergency Budget in June 2010, many were confused by the size of the cuts and the devastation to local government, education and so many other areas. What was not fully realised, however, was the impact of the changes to the welfare benefit system on those with disabilities, and the unfair way in which 15% of the cuts would fall on 2% of the population.

A number of us will have experienced the misery of following up return-to-work interviews. We see constituents who are manifestly incapable of undertaking any normal work. Following the closure of Remploy factories in constituencies including my own, people have no opportunity to undertake work of that kind, and then they are put through the stress of return-to-work interviews. Those whose applications for benefits are subsequently rejected go through a period of incredible stress, and some, sadly, take their lives during that time. Applicants who appeal usually win. Why are we putting people who are already in a vulnerable position through this dreadful, appalling stress?

Others have mentioned the lack of proper assessment of people with mental health conditions. The House now debates the issue of mental health every year, and that is a good thing. Attitudes to mental health are changing in society, and that is a good thing too, but why has it not affected the DWP’s attitude to return-to-work interviews? I have come across people who experience mental health “episodes”. On some days they are okay, and on some days they are not; on some days they have a terrible time, and on others life is more stable for them. It is when such people undergo the additional stress that results from being told that they may be forced to go to work when they are clearly not able to hold down a job that terrible things happen. The numbers of suicides that have resulted from this system are a shame on the country, and a shame on the overall welfare benefits system that we have introduced.

Those who campaigned for—and secured—the principles of universal benefits and the welfare state throughout the 20th century, which culminated in the strong principles behind the National Assistance Act 1948, envisaged a society in which we would protect people from destitution, and would have particular concern for those with disabilities, work-related illnesses, or sicknesses that prevented them from working. Sadly, we now have a system under which many are denied benefits to which they ought to be entitled, and who are living in destitution as a result. Some of them simply cannot cope with that, and suicide results. The situation is compounded by the NHS cuts that have made it so much more difficult for people to get appointments, and the enormous cuts in local government budgets—particularly social services budgets—that have reduced the availability of support mechanisms.

We need to develop a society that protects all, and does not punish people who are suffering from disabilities or long-term sicknesses. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the cumulative assessment takes place, so that we can be shown the real impact of what we have done to our society over the past three years.

14:03

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

This important debate is very welcome, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the Backbench Business Committee for arranging it. Like others, however, I pay particular tribute to the 104,000 people who signed the War on Welfare petition that forms the basis of the motion, and who were the driving force behind today’s debate. The volume of signatures is testimony to the strength of public feeling about these matters. I have had the opportunity to meet War on Welfare campaigners in my constituency and here at Westminster, and I can testify to the anger and fear that many feel about the impact of the Government’s policies on disabled people. It concerns non-disabled people as much as disabled people, which is not surprising in view of the fact that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) so powerfully reminded us—only one in five disabled people is born with a disability.

It is to our shame that, in all walks of life, disabled people face injustice and unfairness. They are twice as likely to be treated unfairly at work as non-disabled people; they are more likely to be victims of crime; they face additional living costs associated with their disabilities; they are twice as likely to live in poverty; and they are less likely to be in work. Today the employment rate among disabled people is 45%, while the rate among the working-age population as a whole is 71%. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) rightly identified some of the labour market barriers that disabled people face. Moreover, shamefully, they are on the receiving end of a virtually non-stop flow of hostile and abusive rhetoric.

One would expect that, faced with that grim picture, the Government would focus their efforts on tackling the injustice and discrimination that confront disabled people, but the policies of the current Government so often make matters worse. That is why Labour wholeheartedly supports the call for a cumulative impact assessment of the effect of those policies on disabled people, and why we called for such an assessment last year.

The Government have argued that Labour never carried out such an assessment, but Labour never unleashed such a deluge of negative policies on disabled people. Let me say to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) in particular that our record speaks for itself. [Interruption.] He should listen to this. Poverty among disabled people, which stood at 40% when Labour came to office, subsequently fell to about one in four, and the employment rate among disabled people rose by 9 percentage points. We introduced a host of measures to strengthen the rights of disabled people. We passed the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and introduced the Equality Act 2010, we formed the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and, in 2009, we signed the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Let us contrast that with the damaging policies of the current Government, which have been highlighted today. Cuts in local authority budgets have meant swingeing cuts in social care. The independent living fund has been closed to new applicants, and its future remains unclear. The Work programme is failing disabled people badly—only 5% of disabled participants have found work—and the Work and Pensions Committee has established that there is just one specialist disability employment adviser for every 600 people in the work-related activity group.

[Guto Bebb]

If the hon. Lady is so proud of the record of Labour, can she explain why training and skills programmes financed by the European social fund in Wales are not being made available to Work programme planners because of a decision by the Welsh Labour Government?

[Kate Green]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that exactly the same is happening in my constituency. I am glad that he mentioned training and skills, because this Government are placing the future of residential training colleges in jeopardy. They closed 33 Remploy factories last year, and 12 months later two thirds of former Remploy employees were still out of work. Funds from the closures were promised to help those former workers into jobs, but they seem to have disappeared.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sorry to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend’s speech. She is presenting some excellent arguments. She mentioned specialist support. Northern Rights provides bespoke support in my constituency, but it cannot secure a contract from the DWP because of the prime contractors who are operating in the area.

[Kate Green]

It is so often the way that organisations which have a specialised knowledge and understanding of the labour market barriers that confront disabled people, and can identify with those people, are themselves shut out and deprived of the opportunity to set up post-Remploy work settings or provide support through the Work programme.

Damaging changes in the benefits system have also had a devastating effect. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), that applies both to cuts in benefits provided specifically for disabled people and to other cuts that affect them disproportionately. Employment and support allowance is in trouble—decisions are taking longer—and problems with the work capability assessment persist. About one in 10 decisions are appealed against successfully. The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), who is no longer in the Chamber, appeared to think that the fact that people could appeal was a sign of the success of the system, but surely it would be better to get the decisions right in the first place.

It is clear that Atos cannot cope. I know that the Minister will say that Labour made the contract, but four years and four independent reviews later—independent reviews which, I should tell the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), are required under Labour’s legislation—things are going from bad to worse.

[Mr Reid]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

No I will not.

The Minister has, of course, been commendably frank about his plans to replace Atos with other providers—that was called for initially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne)—but we need root-and-branch re-purposing and reform of the work capability assessment, as well as improvements in the process. Those improvements should include systemising the collection of evidence in all cases, including evidence from GPs and other clinicians, providing suitable, accessible settings for assessments, and ensuring that recordings of interviews are always available to claimants.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

Not at the moment.

I do not apologise for our intentions when we introduced the ESA and an assessment of people’s capacity for work. We wanted that to be a supportive and facilitative process, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) pointed out, the renegotiation of the Atos contract by the current Government has rebalanced the system to be punitive, not facilitative. The Minister’s plan to replace Atos with other providers goes nowhere near to meeting the need for wholesale reform.

However, I do part company with the motion in its call for the WCA to be scrapped. I know that will disappoint many disabled campaigners listening to the debate. In my view, the assessment should be the first step in a process of identifying and assembling the right support, including financial support. I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that I have never thought there should be no assessment or reassessment, and I do not think it now. Justified criticisms were made of people being left for years on incapacity benefit without any support or any check on their progress or the deterioration of their condition, and we should not go back to that. Yet just this week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore)—who has had to leave the debate to attend a Bill Committee—pointed out, we learned that Ministers are going to leave people on ESA in exactly that position for the next two years without reassessment, and apparently planned to keep both claimants and MPs in the dark about it. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify exactly the background to that extraordinary decision today.

[Caroline Lucas]

I think people with disabilities will be disappointed to hear what the hon. Lady says, because the current work capability assessment has become so tainted by being linked to a Government who are very clearly trying to reduce the amount of money they give out that if a new Labour Government wanted to redesign the assessment, which would still obviously need to assess whether or not people are eligible, they should call it something else. By sticking to the name “work capability assessment” and not being able to support the motion, the hon. Lady is doing people with disabilities a disservice.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady largely made a very helpful contribution, but there is an important point about the legitimacy of the assessment process—a legitimacy that disabled people will themselves recognise confers on them the entitlement to the benefits they receive. It is very important that we do nothing to undermine the public’s perception of entitlement.

Meanwhile, as we can see from today’s National Audit Office report, the roll-out of PIP is also in trouble. Terminally ill patients and disabled people have to wait weeks, if not months, for a decision, leaving them stranded financially, and anxious and uncertain about their claim. Why on earth Ministers awarded a PIP contract to Atos, given its failure to manage the WCA contract properly, is simply beyond my understanding. What on earth were they thinking of?

The replacement of the DLA with PIP also comes with a 20% budget cut, leaving disabled people and their carers facing the loss of vital financial support. Some will lose their Motability vehicles, and some will fall out of work as a result. The Disability Benefits Consortium has suggested that if 50,000 people leave work as a result of losing the mobility payment, that could cost the Exchequer £464 million in lost taxes and national insurance and in additional benefits.

It is not just about cuts to benefits specifically for disabled people either, because other benefit cuts affect them disproportionately too: the bedroom tax; the introduction of the benefit cap, which will also significantly impact on carers, many of whom cannot take paid work to escape it; the localisation of council tax support; the removal of funding for local assistance schemes; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) pointed out, the decision to uprate benefits by CPI, which impacts particularly harshly on disabled people, who face substantial additional living costs.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said, in times of austerity it is disabled people who are bearing a disproportionate burden, and the Government’s responsibility is to work hand in hand with them to protect and strengthen their independence, their dignity, their choices and their right to live free from stigma, hardship and fear. As a first step to doing that, it is high time that Ministers undertook a proper cumulative impact assessment of the effect of their policies, took action and faced up to their devastating effects.

14:09

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

I apologise as I had to pop out of the Chamber for a second—nature called—but I came straight back and I think I caught most of the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

[Ian Lavery]

It’s down to age.

[Mike Penning]

Yes, it’s an age thing; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—and that is no doubt the voice of experience.

I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing it from the Backbench Business Committee. This is the sort of debate that should take place. I also agree that it should be a non-whipped debate; that is right and proper. We may not all agree about what has been discussed, but it is, frankly, in my opinion something the Whips should stay out of, and we should have proper debates. I will probably get shot when I leave the Chamber for saying that.

There are also some parts of this very long motion with which I have a great deal of sympathy, and there are parts of it with which I do not agree, as Members on both sides of the House will realise, but perhaps we can try to work on what I do agree on and what we can do together to make the benefits regime better for the people we are trying to represent and the lobby that is here today.

Some 24 Members including myself have now taken part in the debate and it is a shame that it was time-restricted, but I understand fully why that was the case. We could have spoken for a great deal longer and have had longer contributions, however. Many Members on both sides of the House have raised specific constituency cases and my officials are in the Box and will have taken note of them. I will write to the Members concerned directly after this debate and see how we can progress those matters forward. I will also take a personal interest in certain cases, and in particular the case raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). On that case, as the Minister responsible, I apologise unreservedly to the family. It falls back on me, and it is about time politicians stood up and apologised when things have gone wrong. In that case, things clearly have gone wrong and the family have every right to be aggrieved, and I hope the hon. Gentleman’s constituent makes a full recovery.

On the call for a cumulative assessment, I am not going to say to the shadow Minister that previous Administrations did not do that—although they did not—but there was a reason why and it is very complex, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has also said that that could not be done properly and accurately enough. I hope the shadow Minister and others will understand why, although the Treasury carries out independent reviews of different parts of Government policy, it does not do that. I respect the work done in other reports, but they are not cumulative in the way we would like.

[Ian Mearns]

Outside agencies have attempted to do cumulative impact assessments—Scope and Demos, for instance, worked together on an assessment. Surely, given the resources of Government, we can do a better job than those organisations and make a good fist of it.

[Mike Penning]

Actually, I was going to refer to the work by Dr Duffy, and when we leave the Chamber today, I will ask my officials to contact Dr Duffy and his team to see whether we can work closely together. Perhaps we can give them better information so we can be as accurate as possible.

The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said my heart is in the right place, and I hope it is. I consider it a great honour to do this job and I desperately want to make things right and proper. If we look at the spending since 2009 going forward and projected into 2015, we see that the budget in this area of Government expenditure will continue to rise. We have a slightly more cumulative figure than the ones I cited earlier, and it is about £50 billion a year, so we spend just under £1 billion a week in this budget. The key for everybody in the House is how we spend it—that we spend it correctly.

I also believe in having a work capability assessment. I do not agree with the motion, but I do agree with the shadow Minister. I think that the assessment was brought in for the right reasons. I am not going to say all the problems were caused by the previous Administration because, frankly, the problems with Atos and the WCA have been there for everybody to see since the general election as well. It is not quite as simple as saying, as some Members have, that we should go out tomorrow morning and sack Atos. It has a contract. As I said at oral questions earlier in the week, I am determined that once we have negotiated the position with Atos—and we are in negotiation with Atos, which is why I was so surprised to read the views of Atos in the press over the weekend—we must make absolutely sure taxpayers’ money is not paid to Atos as compensation for the end of the contract when that comes. That would be fundamentally wrong and I would not agree to it. The negotiations continue.

We have discussed several aspects of benefits today, and I believe that the time being taken for people to be assessed is fundamentally unacceptable. This is an issue not only for the suppliers of PIP and the WCA—we have talked about Capita and Atos—but for my Department as well.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I want to make some progress, but I promise that I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I want to make a little more progress on this point.

The National Audit Office report has been mentioned today. It was a snapshot report based on the situation in the autumn of last year. When I appeared before the Select Committee, I spoke extensively about one aspect of the report, which dealt with terminal illness. It is crucial to understand that I hid nothing away from the Committee, and that I said that the length of time involved in dealing with those cases was unacceptable. It has now come down to about 10 days. That is still too long, although it is less than it was under the previous scheme. We will get it down even further. I am working closely with Macmillan, and we have agreed to pilot a scheme for the 2% of terminal cases in which we will return to a paper-based system until I can get a secure PDF into place. Macmillan is pleased with what we are doing on that. The system is still not perfect, but we have moved an awfully long way, and we learned a lot of the lessons before the report even came out.

[Kate Green]

My point is on the WCA, and I hope that the Minister will address the question that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) raised about the suspension of reassessment of ESA claimants for the next two years. Will he tell us why the Department appears to have decided not to inform claimants or Members of Parliament about that?

[Mike Penning]

If we were to inform claimants and Members of Parliament about the minutiae of every single change in policy, we would be here a lot longer. As most Members know, I am not hugely party political, but I must point out that the previous Administration did not offer that level of information either. That is not how Governments work. We are trying to deal with the delays, and to ensure that people get what they are entitled to as quickly as possible and that nobody will be worse off while we are doing that. We are, however, in the middle of a really difficult negotiation with Atos over the WCA.

I want to talk about how we can speed things up. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of a network involving all the major stakeholders and charities. I hope that I will not upset any of the charities by leaving them out. It was a positive meeting, at which I said to them, “Sit with us and work with us to help us improve on what we have.” I was very much in listening mode, which is why I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi).

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am not going to make a party political point; my comment is meant to assist the Minister. On a voluntary basis, I have represented people appealing against assessments now, under the current system, as well as 20-odd years ago under the old system. The problem now lies with the assessment method, which involves only form-filling and box-ticking. That is why we can no longer assess people’s disabilities properly. In the old days, a medical expert gave evidence on a person’s ability. If we were to bring doctors back into the equation, we might find that more decisions were made properly.

[Mike Penning]

I am almost sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady, because her intervention was so long. My time is being massively eroded, and I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will give me a few more minutes to address the issues that have been raised.

The consultants and GPs tell us that the clinical evidence taken at the assessment is vital. When they carry out an assessment, they are not there to provide a diagnosis; they are there to assess capacity. They can do that only by using an evidence base. One of the big issues under DLA was that only 6% of applicants ever got a face-to-face assessment. We are at 97% now with PIP. I agree that that is fundamentally too high, as I said to the Select Committee.

I have also attended tribunals to see what is happening during the last part of the DLA claims that are now coming through. I listened to the cases, and I agreed that some of them should never have come before the tribunal in the first place. Under PIP, we have mandatory reconsideration; that was never the case before. I have now asked my officials to go through the approximately 30,000 cases waiting to go to tribunal. We will mandatorily assess all of them, to try to prevent so many from going to tribunal. There is a lot of work to be done, but we must do as much as we can, together with the charities and the representative bodies.

Residential colleges were mentioned earlier. I agree that they do excellent work, but the college principals know that I cannot pay for places that are not taken up. That is what was happening under the previous contract. There were residential places with nobody in residence, and we had day people on day courses. We have worked with the colleges on that, and we will ensure that we have the necessary capacity. Interventions have eroded my time, so I shall now listen to what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has to say; I think I know what it will be. Please, let us work together to ensure that the system is better for everyone we represent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call Mr McDonnell to wind up the debate, I would like to congratulate the Minister on behalf of the House on his appointment today to the Privy Council.

14:26

[John McDonnell]

I am sorry to spoil the Minister’s day. When the banking crisis took place, the Government —with the support of all parties in the House—found £1.3 trillion to bail the banks out. Since then, virtually every other part of society has been paying for that bail-out, other than the banks themselves. Is it not ironic that we are debating cuts affecting people with disabilities in the week when RBS is putting together a half a billion pounds pool to pay bonuses?

Time and again in the debate, we have heard about the suffering that disabled people are enduring as a result of the cuts, and to be frank, I have heard nothing today about alleviating that suffering. That is why it is important to make a commitment to carry out a cumulative impact assessment. Any good Government would want to assess the impact of their policies, so why are this Government refusing to do so? I think it is because, if an impact assessment were published, people across society would be so angered and disgusted at how people with disabilities were being treated that they would rise up in revolt.

I say to the Minister that when the Question is put at the end of the debate, I will be shouting “Aye”, and I hope that everyone in the House will do the same. If the Government say that it is too complicated for them to carry out the assessment, let us have an independent assessment. Why cannot the Government bring in the Centre for Welfare Reform, Demos and the other think-tanks and fund them to do the cumulative impact assessment that the Government are running from?

All the campaigners have been saying—as we have exposed again today—that the work capability assessment is not working. It is failing people and causing them to suffer; it is failing properly to assess their ailments and conditions; and it is failing to get them back into work. That does not mean that there should be no assessment, however. We are saying that we should scrap this one and work with people with disabilities, their representatives, the BMA and others to create a system that is fair and just. That is all that the people up in the Gallery and the 100,000-plus others who signed the petition are asking for. That is why I urge Members to shout “Aye” today, and to support the reform that is so desperately needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to commission an independent cumulative assessment of the impact of changes in the welfare system on sick and disabled people, their families and carers, drawing upon the expertise of the Work and Pensions Select Committee; requests that this impact assessment examine care home admissions, access to day care centres, access to education for people with learning difficulties, provision of universal mental health treatments, closures of Remploy factories, the Government's contract with Atos Healthcare, IT implementation of universal credit, human rights abuses against disabled people, excess deaths of welfare claimants and the disregard of medical evidence in decision-making by Atos, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Tribunals Service; urges the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education jointly to launch a consultation on improving support into work for sick and disabled people; and further calls on the Government to end with immediate effect the work capability assessment, as voted for by the British Medical Association, to discontinue forced work under the threat of sanctions for people on disability benefits and to bring forward legislative proposals to allow a free vote on repeal of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

Parliamentary Representation

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Final Report from the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation), Session 2009-10, HC 239-I, and the Government response, Cm 7824. First Special Report from the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation), Session 2009-10, HC 449.]

14:29

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the fact that there are now more women hon. Members and hon. Members from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in the UK Parliament than at any time in history; notes that, in spite of progress, Parliament is not yet fully representative of the diversity of UK society; recognises that increased diversity of representation is a matter of justice and would enhance debate and decision-making and help to rebuild public faith in Parliament; is concerned that the progress made in 2010 may not be sustained unless concerted efforts are made to support individuals from under-represented communities to stand for election in 2015; and calls on the Government and political parties to fulfil commitments made in response to the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) in 2010, including commitments in respect of candidate selection and support for candidates.

It is interesting to note just how topical this debate is. A few weeks ago, almost every newspaper in the land carried the picture of the all-male Government Front Bench. I wonder whether it will go down in history, and be as iconic as the Blair’s babes photo, which I was proud to be in. I am not sure whether those on the Government Front Bench were quite so proud to be in their photo.

We have also heard that a number of women MPs are standing down at the next election. That is not unusual for women who are over 65 and who have served in this place for more than 20 years, but it is concerning when younger women who have only been in Parliament for one term decide that they would rather be doing something else.

We have also had your plea, Mr Speaker, for a more civilised Prime Minister’s questions—good luck on that one! Is it all about macho culture, as many say, or is there something intrinsic in the confrontational shape of the Chamber? A great deal has been written in recent months about the rather narrow socio-economic background of most MPs. People ask, “Why so few working-class MPs?” All of that is relevant to this debate. However, the reason I applied for this debate is more prosaic. In the previous Parliament, I was vice- chair of the Speaker's Conference on parliamentary representation, and one of the recommendations was that, every two years, there should be a debate on the issues raised in our report on the Floor of the House. It was hoped that such a debate would raise the importance of having a diverse Parliament, look at the progress made and come up with suggestions on how to improve the situation. The Speaker’s Conference felt that if the issue was not discussed regularly, the need to take action would be forgotten. The last debate was in January 2012, so this debate is to fulfil that recommendation.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in her speech. May I congratulate her on securing this debate and getting the chance to have it on the Floor of the House, and on all the work that she has done, and indeed that Mr Speaker has done, on the issue of parliamentary representation? She has mentioned gender, but does she agree that there is also a case for increasing parliamentary representation in respect of race? In 1987, for example, we had four black and Asian MPs. It is now up to 27 on both sides of the House, but that is still well below the percentage of ethnic minorities in the population as a whole.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I think 4% of the House now comes from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background. The proportion in the general community is 8%. Although a lot of progress has been made, we still have a way to go.

It is just a happy coincidence that the very month that the issue is on the front pages we have the anniversary of the publication of the Speaker’s Conference report. The issue is a live one—as live today as it was five years ago when the conference was first proposed. The arguments for a diverse Parliament being both necessary and desirable have not changed. We should have a Parliament that is representative; it seems obvious. The people sitting in this Chamber should reflect the whole of British society. They should come from all walks of life. This House needs to look more like modern Britain. People should be able to look at this place and see someone who looks or sounds like them and who has, if not the same personal experience, at least an understanding of the life they lead.

To achieve that is difficult. It does not happen by accident. It takes a conscious effort from those with the power to ensure that the candidates the electorate are asked to vote for in the general election come from a range of backgrounds with different life experiences. The political parties are the gatekeepers of this process. They are the ones who choose the candidates, so it is incumbent on them to ensure they have candidates who come from an ethnic minority, are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, have a disability—and are not all white men from private schools. I always use the phrase “private schools”, because in Scotland public schools are run by the state and are free to go to. What a difference language can make!

What progress has been made? The House of Commons is more diverse now than at any time in history. It was only at the 1997 election, when I entered the House, that more than 100 women were elected. Up until then, there were more MPs called John than there were women. Interestingly, there were only five women who had been a member of the Cabinet before Margaret Thatcher.

More than 50% of the Labour intake at the last two elections have been women, and across Parliament 4% are black, Asian and minority ethnic against 8% in the general population. There are now more MPs with a disability, and we have even heard from MPs who have been willing to reveal that they have suffered from a mental health problem.

May I also commend the Government for introducing the access to elected office for disabled people fund and for announcing its extension up to 2015 a couple of weeks ago? The Speaker’s Conference recommended setting up such a fund to help disabled people overcome one of the barriers they face in seeking selection—the extra costs that they incur. The money might go to pay for a signer, or postage for someone who cannot hand deliver letters to members, or extra travel costs. It is important and it is a start.

Although the fund can be accessed by disabled people across the UK for selection to Westminster, it does not cover elections to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local authorities—I am sad that the members of the Scottish National party have disappeared out of the Chamber. Those elections are the responsibility of the Scottish Government who have yet to set up such a fund in Scotland. Despite warm words and a motion and debate in the Scottish Parliament last year, nothing has yet happened. Therefore, while English disabled people can access the fund for local government elections, Scottish disabled people cannot. As political parties in Scotland have already begun their selection process for the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2016, the need for such a fund is urgent. If they leave it too late, potential disabled candidates could miss out. I hope the Scottish Government hear my call and follow the example set by the UK Government in this worthwhile initiative.

There have been other changes that have made Parliament more accessible. We now have more reasonable hours, and the programming of business has meant an end to the old late nights spent in the bar. The opening of Parliament’s crèche has also been a step forward. However, there is no room for complacency, and unless the women MPs who are standing down in 2015 are replaced by even more women, then the overall numbers could drop. There is clearly a need for us to look at ourselves to see why so many people think that being an MP is not a job for them.

If people from different backgrounds do not want to be an MP, and cannot be persuaded to put themselves forward, we will not address the supply side issues. If it is too expensive to enter a selection race, people from modest backgrounds are not going to be in that race. If the public continue to hold MPs in such low regard, why would anyone in their right mind want to be an MP? Of course perception is far worse than the reality, which may explain why a higher proportion of the people wanting to be an MP already have a knowledge of the world of Parliament—either because they are related to an MP, they have worked for one or they have been a political special adviser. What puts other people off, does not seem to discourage them. Perhaps they realise that being an MP can be fun. I must say that I have never regretted standing for Parliament, and I do not come from the typical MP’s background. How do we get across the fact that, for most of us, serving as an MP is a privilege and an honour and the best decision of our lives? Having said that, we must be honest about the issues that put people off. Perhaps we should do more work shadowing, such as that organised by Operation Black Vote, and look closely at the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) so that potential candidates can see just how good this place can be, despite all the shouting—although that can be fun, too.

If proof were needed that MPs are different from the rest of the population, we need look no further than the recent research by academics Professor Sarah Childs and Dr Rosie Campbell presented at the “Parenting in Parliament” event last month. Their research has identified a statistically significant difference between the number of children that women MPs have and the number of children had by women of their peer group in wider society, with women MPs having fewer children. That would appear to support the proposition that family commitments are a barrier to women’s entry into Parliament. Dr Campbell indicated at the event that further qualitative work would be required to ascertain precisely what factors are involved and how this issue may best be addressed.

One key recommendation of the Speaker’s Conference that remains unresolved was aimed at ensuring that political parties choose a diverse range of candidates in potentially winnable seats: the publication by political parties of diversity data relating to candidate selections has not properly happened. It is worth setting out again the reason why the conference thought that was so important. We found evidence to indicate strongly that inequality persists in candidate selection. The reasons for that are complex, and it is difficult to identify and apply solutions because parties and constituencies select candidates by different methods and, frequently, independently of central control.

The vast majority of MPs are selected on a party ticket. The parties are the agents of change, and the choices the parties make about candidates are central to shaping what the House of Commons looks like. Those choices are important to the parties as well: the message of inclusion is a very powerful one that could help to engage new audiences and develop closer bonds with alienated communities. We recommended the creation of a formal monitoring scheme, requiring political parties to publish anonymised data on the gender, ethnic background and other characteristics of candidates selected. Knowing that the parties already hold that type of information, we gathered it from them ourselves and published it in the six months preceding the last general election—that shows that it can be done. We also secured an amendment to the then Equality Bill—it is now section 106 of the Equality Act 2010—to make such monitoring permanent.

Since the election, however, and the end of the conference, the central publication of data has stopped, despite my writing to the political parties reminding them of the Speaker’s Conference recommendation. Section 106 of the Equality Act has not been commenced, as the Government wished to consult further with the parties and secure their agreement to publish voluntarily. But that has not happened, so may I ask the Minister whether she can implement section 106, so that candidate selection can be tracked? Now is the right time to do it, as candidate selections for 2015 were delayed owing to uncertainty over future parliamentary constituency boundaries, so it was only at the end of last year that selections for Westminster constituencies began in earnest. Data on current candidate selections have now been published online by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but not, as far as I can discover, by the Conservatives. Some of the information that has been published is not necessarily comparable across the parties, but I hope the Minister can help with all that.

I appreciate that all political parties have different cultures and so may not all adopt the same approaches in tackling under-representation. It might be through all-women shortlists, through the use of primaries, through the use of an A-list or by whatever means, but a conscious effort must be made because this will not happen by accident. There is no silver bullet or magic wand to wave that will change the make-up of the Commons, and it would be an enormous missed opportunity if the Parliament elected in 2015 is less diverse than this one. Changing that make-up will require all political parties to accept they have a role to play in fostering talent and in candidate selection. The Government can play a role, too, in providing leadership and encouraging a cross-party approach, as we have seen with the access to elected office fund. But Parliament has to be more welcoming, too, and perhaps, if I may be so bold, Mr Speaker, that is where you come in as well. Our democracy is precious—it is too precious to be wholly in the hands of a narrow elite. We can make this a Parliament for the 21st century, but we can only do it together.

14:44

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing this debate and on keeping the pressure up to make sure that the Speaker’s Conference proposals, which were made before many of us entered the House, live and carry on delivering the successful outcomes that they have started to deliver. I agree with much of what has already been said; we are here because we all care about our democracy and know how fundamental it is that all Britons, regardless of their ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, where they come from or social background, should not be barred from playing a full part in our parliamentary democracy. So this debate involves the issue of fairness, as well as the effectiveness of our legislative process. As I found in business, things are much more effective where a diverse group of individuals, with a variety of backgrounds and experiences behind them, come together to have an impact on the process. Later in my contribution I will give a few examples of small ways in which that has been achieved by our greater diversity.

A more representative Chamber will also help us to reduce the gap, which we have all seen grow in our lifetimes, between the public and their elected representatives. There are many reasons why we are all here, and the whole process starts at a young age by inspiring in people an interest in politics. Although we have improved the routes into politics, one conventional route is still for young people to come here to work as interns or special advisers or for one of the main parties’ research functions. We have to capture those young people and make sure they are more representative of society at large, as that is a natural pool of entry into politics.

We also need to consider the people who come into Parliament later in their careers, having done something else first. The public always say that they want to see more of that, and I believe everyone in this House agrees with that. There needs to be a career within Parliament that embraces the experience that these people have had in other fields and does not just focus narrowly on the more political experience, and the performance in the Chamber and at the big set-piece events, as the only perceived way of getting on in Government or shadow Government.

There are many barriers to overcome, and I have touched on a few. The hon. Lady gave a strong mention to the economic barrier, which puts a great many people off. It is why we have so few people from lower-paid or manual occupations. Indeed, there are also issues to address in respect of people at the higher end of the pay spectrum, who might feel that they cannot afford to go into Parliament. This is a big issue with numerous aspects.

The impact on family life has to be tackled better than it has been, and some of the regulations imposed by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority have moved the situation backwards. That has to be tackled head on; we must not be embarrassed or nervous about dealing with the problem faced by those who represent constituencies many miles away and who want their family with them during the working week. They should not be disincentivised by an anti-family system of allowances. That system has to be changed.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the partners, wives and husbands of MPs have changed their view of the role of an MP? An MP, like everybody else in our society, needs to do a range of things both for their family and for their work, and that social change in expectations on child care and other things is a driver in some of the things to which she has referred.

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a good point about how society and family life are changing, and how Parliament has to keep up with that. I quite agree.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Following on from that, does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to become an MP is a much greater one for a woman than it is for a man, particularly if she is of child-bearing age, because there are big decisions to make about when to have children? I am absolutely full of admiration for female colleagues in this House who have had babies while they have been working, but there are decisions to be made about who looks after the child, possibly decisions that men do not have to make. That is one of the reasons why women are under-represented in this Chamber.

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; she makes an important point. I know that she does not mean to imply that the aspects of family life and child-rearing that she mentioned apply only to women; increasingly, young fathers are also involved in making such decisions.

It is difficult to combine a parliamentary career with caring responsibilities. While my parents were alive—they lived close to me in London—I would have found it possible to represent a London constituency but impossible to represent a constituency outside of London and many miles away from them.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We need to tackle this issue, and the system of allowances and parliamentary hours, about which much progress has been made, needs to reflect the difficult decisions that people make. She is quite right, of course; I believe that there is only one mother in the Cabinet, and perhaps that has something to do with the point she made.

I will talk a little about some of the measures that have been taken and that have worked to various degrees. Clearly, the all-women shortlists that the Labour party introduced in 1997 have had a positive effect on the representation of women in Parliament, and I am sure that they have had much to do with why 33% of Labour MPs are women. Positive discrimination, if I can put it that way, has also benefited Conservative representation, perhaps not so much in this place as in Europe, where we have two or three very good MEPs who were elected at the last European elections because we were brave enough to say that in the primary system of election, whereby we were electing candidates, the highest placed woman went to the top of the list.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that, although we of course want to have as many women as possible in Parliament—not least because they are as gracious as she is—it is still a fundamental Conservative principle that Conservative associations must preserve full independence to select the best people, whatever their sex?

[Margot James]

A system that does not recognise that some groups in society face greater barriers than others does not do Parliament a service, and I do not think that we can just leave things to what, in some parts of our country, are fairly small groups of people. If they are in a Conservative area where there is a large majority and effectively choosing the MP, I do not think that they can expect to have untrammelled choice, when we are acknowledging in this debate that many groups—including women and ethnic minorities, and especially people with disabilities—have particular issues they need to overcome. That needs to be built into a system in order for it to be genuinely meritocratic, and I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I could make the quip that for more than 200 years we seemed to have all-male shortlists and nobody seemed to object to that. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we make international comparisons, we see that where there is higher representation of women in international Parliaments there is some form of positive discrimination?

[Margot James]

I agree with that point and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. In most Parliaments where there is a decent level of female representation there is at least positive action.

Our party has succeeded to some degree with the positive action that we have taken. I was on the A-list, as it was known, before the last election, along with many of my hon. Friends. That system enabled a big increase in the number of Conservative women that we now have in the Chamber. As many Members will know, it was a system whereby half of the list of candidates from which an association could select were female. We went through a few other developments on that theme, and later in the cycle of selections there was a system whereby associations had to have gender parity at each stage of the selection process. I commend that process for enabling men to have a proper and fair chance while ensuring that women were supported in overcoming some of the more extensive barriers that they face.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I will just take my hon. Friend back to the point of selection. Is it not also the case that the selection processes of all parties, but especially our party, do not only favour men but men of a particular social and professional background? That has been one of the biggest issues in expanding representation. This debate is about not only gender, but social class, and frankly our associations all too often—not in the case of my constituency, I am pleased to say—represent a particular social class.

[Margot James]

My hon. Friend makes the very good point that, of course, this debate is about more than gender; I could not agree more. In my area, the black country, I do not feel that Conservatives have any sort of class bias in favour of people from higher socio-economic backgrounds, but I can see that in some parts of the country that bias might exist and we must certainly stamp it out.

Gender is an area where it has been easier to improve the selection processes, but we must work equally hard on improving the access to Parliament for other disadvantaged groups. We can do that by fostering a sense of inclusion—a sense that Parliament is an inclusive place—and by our parties respecting that when they select candidates.

The Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme has delivered a good start in equalising the number of women and men who come into Parliament at a young age to work. Almost 50% of the paid internships supported by the scheme have been for young women, which is a good thing. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South mentioned the access to elected office for disabled people fund. There have been 60 applicants to that fund and 29 people with disabilities, who probably face greater hurdles than anybody else in entering Parliament, now have full funding, which is great progress. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support for all that work, which I hope will continue.

I will say a little bit about the sort of changes that we can make when we get here. The number of lesbian and gay people on our Benches now makes quite a big difference. Ministers across all Departments are very busy people. I am glad to say that all the Ministers I know are fully committed to diversity and equality, but the issue is not always at the top of their mind—they have very busy lives and many responsibilities—so it is up to Back Benchers. I applaud many of my fellow gay Back Benchers on keeping the Government to their promises. There has been the legalisation on gay marriage; the removal of historical convictions for consensual sex between men; the pardoning of Alan Turing; and support for anti-homophobic bullying campaigns in school. There are many other examples, too. It is because we have more diversity that we can make that sort of difference, and that is why we need more of it.

I want to talk about what we can learn from business. In business, we have seen some success in the “Women on Boards” programme, which has very much been led by the Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant). Now, 25% of non-executive directors on boards are female; that is up from 16%. I can see business outstripping politics if we are not careful. Of course, I hope that business wins the battle to get more diversity and inclusion. It realises that it will not win corporate battles by relying on the talent pool that used to win in the past, and that areas of great shortage, such as engineering, need to attract more women. Some 75% of an organisation’s customers and employees will not be white men, so its decision makers should not be, either.

There are many ways to lead. Lloyds Banking Group has set a target: it wants women to be 40% of its senior executives in five years’ time. Procter & Gamble has a big programme on developing women leaders globally. Thomson Reuters has a female management academy. Those organisations recognise that women need support and training, and a champion at board level to enable them to fulfil their potential. I see an opportunity there for politics in Westminster. I think that we are all aware that HR at Westminster is perhaps a little antediluvian, compared with HR in industry. We need to learn lessons from these organisations, which do not just set targets, but have committed people dedicated to making those targets a reality. On those programmes, women are identified and put into positions that are known as feeder jobs, in which people can acquire critical skills that they will require at board level. What I am saying is that it is not enough to get greater diversity in Parliament; we then need career progression, which needs to be managed and led from the top. There is a great opportunity there, and I urge that point on Members on both Front Benches.

[Julian Smith]

From my experience of head-hunting in business, I would say that the key element in getting more women into the positions that we are talking about is incentivising men to look at a much broader longlist of candidates. That is vital in achieving what she wants.

[Margot James]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. More broadly, many men, both in politics and the corporate world, now see the benefits of having a more inclusive environment. It is crucial that the head-hunting industry plays its part in supplying the longlists that he mentions. There is a lot to learn from business.

There is also outreach: we have to reach out. I hear from contacts in universities and the workplace that the Labour party is very good at that. We Conservative Members need to follow its example of going after people from a diverse range of backgrounds when they are at university or in leadership roles in business, inviting them in, and suggesting a parliamentary career to them. Hopefully, more will be Conservative than the opposite.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

rose—

[Margot James]

Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) need not be unduly shy; she would be breaking the habit of a lifetime.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to follow up the point about going to universities and enthusing people at that stage. That needs to start even earlier. I have been shocked to find in schools that pupils do not ever read a newspaper or watch news bulletins on television. I encourage them to do so. They think politics and public life are nothing to do with them. Interest in general matters needs to start much earlier.

[Margot James]

I absolutely agree. All of us have a duty in that regard. We all enjoy going to schools and talking about politics, and ensuring that there are school visits to this place; all that is very important. Politics A-level should be an option in all sixth-form colleges and all schools, because that can inspire people. If young people do not watch the news on television, perhaps they are getting their information from blogs, or in other ways, but they must be encouraged, by us and by others, to engage politically; I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that.

We all want a much more inclusive political process. I hope that I have been able to set out a few ideas about how parties, the Government and Parliament itself can help us to achieve that goal so that we do not go backwards, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen South realistically warned that we might, but instead go forward as a Parliament that is far more inclusive than it has been to date.

15:05

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing the debate. She was extremely modest, however, because she has been assiduous and tenacious in following through on these matters since she was vice-Chair of the Speaker’s Conference, albeit that she chaired it under the previous Speaker and then under your tutelage, Mr Speaker, after you were prepared to pick up the cudgel when you came into your position. You carried the conference forward and have given support since then including, of course, through the parliamentary placement scheme that you and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) have pushed forward. I am pleased to have a paid intern in my office under that scheme, who happens to be female, which is beneficial in my speaking in the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South must not hide her light under a bushel, because not enough people keep pushing this issue. I often nip myself and think, “Why aren’t I doing more to speak about this, or to put forward publicly ideas of what we might do?” I should, however, declare a non-pecuniary interest: I am helping to establish the Bernard Crick centre at Sheffield university—it is named after my old tutor, Professor Sir Bernard Crick—which is also called the centre for the public understanding of politics.

We had high hopes that the Cabinet Office, linked to the Deputy Prime Minister’s office, would be prepared to do more. We keep hearing that it will, but after the schemes are put up, they seem to disappear like sand between fingers. I understand that money has been diverted to be handed over to local authorities to address the critical issue of electoral registration, given that Parliament was getting into a mess regarding people being discouraged from registering, but we need to spend even modest sums to encourage political engagement from the earliest years.

The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) is right that it is vital that we encourage young people at school to be interested in politics and citizenship and that they receive proper unbiased tutoring in those subjects. I was very pleased that the Secretary of State for Education—I do not often say that—took a step back and did not remove citizenship from the school curriculum, but there is still a discussion behind the scenes about parity with other curriculum subjects and the timing of any review of programmes of study. I hope that that will be sorted out between the Department and Ofqual as quickly as possible because, as the hon. Lady rightly said, we often pick this up too late. If young people are turned off from the whole idea of public engagement—not just standing for a council seat or this place, but being engaged in campaigns and activities that we would all see as crucial dynamics in a living civil society—we will lose them. By the time people start having children and commitments, it can often be too late.

[Dame Anne Begg]

When I was listing the things that have improved, I failed to acknowledge the improvement to the parliamentary education service and not only its outreach work, but what it does to bring people to this place so that we can break down some of the barriers.

[Mr Blunkett]

I agree entirely, and I am pleased that the education centre has been granted planning consent. I hope that there will be a route to it, Mr Speaker, because I am strongly in favour of the service, and support and participate in its programmes. I am pleased that your efforts and those of the Lord Speaker in reaching out, going out and talking about Parliament and politics in a non-party way is encouraging others to be interested in this subject. There is hunger out there. I say that I hope there is access to the new facilities because on one or two days of the week these days, it is quite difficult to get from Portcullis House to here in one piece. I do not want to discourage anybody from coming here, but we will have to look at that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have taken careful note of his strictures on that point, and I regard it as being as close to a parliamentary instruction as he is minded to volunteer? I hope that he will not be disappointed when the eventual plans materialise.

[Mr Blunkett]

I am very grateful for that. These days, I grab at anything that indicates that what I have said is taken seriously, so thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

The way in which people see politics and Parliament has been raised. The allowances debacle four years ago is still doing great damage, partly because people believe things that do not happen and they believe and are worried about things that do happen. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South agrees when I say that, in relation to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, issues to do with disability matters have improved considerably. There is always a step back in any organisation when there is a change of personnel, because people do not know that others have been “educated” to understand the issues and to be sensitive to them. But when it comes to an understanding of families one would have thought that those who have families—everybody is brought up in some sort of family, even if they are looked after—would have understood the issues around family life. I regret that we have not got there yet.

On the issue of disability, access to elected office is important. I am pleased that 29 people have been fully funded on this. I have been trying to help people who have approached me from both major parties. No one has yet approached me from the Lib Dems, but I would not discriminate against them if they did, so perhaps I could encourage them to do so.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that there is not a single Lib Dem in the Chamber.

[Mr Blunkett]

I thought that the Equalities Minister was a Lib Dem.

[Nia Griffith]

She is absent.

[Mr Blunkett]

That is a shame because she served on the Speaker’s Conference. I was hoping that the enthusiasm that she showed five years ago would have shone through. I do know that ministerial office wears you down, and you sometimes lose the fervour that you came in with. Perhaps we could encourage her on these matters.

Access to elected office is important, but here is a thought.

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point.

[Mr Blunkett]

Can I just do the thought? When you get to my age after 27 years in this place, if you do not deliver the thought when it is in your head, you might lose it.

The thought was how difficult it is for people with disabilities—it is equally true for those with caring responsibilities, who are mainly, although not exclusively, women—both to become a candidate in the European elections and then to campaign effectively across a region. We need to encourage the European Union to be a lot more supportive in that regard.

[Julian Smith]

On the point about the Liberal Democrat Minister who is not here. If I am not mistaken, she is on maternity leave. That is a really positive move, and crucial to the issues that we are debating.

[Mr Blunkett]

I have always been prepared to take advice from around me and behind me, and I totally commend the Minister on her drive and willingness to take on the difficult task of matching her political and personal responsibilities. How could I not? I am reliably informed that there is some sort of job share going on.

We must also not exaggerate the difficulties. We need to be positive in seeking change, but we need to tell people more often that it is possible to do it. I want to say something that is a bit more humble than usual. I am very proud to have been in the Cabinet for eight years, as I am of all sorts of things I have done over the past 44 years, both in local government and in Parliament, but probably the most important thing I have ever done, and the thing I am most proud of, is demonstrating to young people, families, employers and society in general that someone with a definable disability—I rarely talk about this—can work on equal terms in a very tough environment. If I can get that message across, everything else will have been worth while. I say that because I think that we have to be positive in saying, “Whatever your background, whatever the challenges you’ve had in life, whatever economic or physical disadvantages, and whatever your gender or race, you can do it.”

To pick up on the point made by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, I have often been concerned that particular ethnic minority groups are underrepresented in Parliament and in many areas of local government. I am particularly concerned in that regard about the Afro-Caribbean community. We need to look at how we can encourage particular groups to feel that they can play a part and that they would be welcome in doing so.

It is about people like us, but it is also about people who are changing like us. I want more people who have experienced challenges in their life to feel that they can come forward and use that experience to bring about positive change for others, but I also want them not to be daunted by the fact that we change. I am not the same person I was when I entered Sheffield city council in 1970, or even when I entered this place in 1987, and the challenges and difficulties I face are not the same. To begin with, I am better off now. I can buy things that I could not previously buy and do things that I could not previously do.

I am also slightly more daunted by things that I used to do, particularly when it comes to travel. For example—I will share this story with the House briefly—I remember going to a football match at Stamford Bridge when I was in my late teens. The match was between Sheffield Wednesday and Chelsea. I persuaded my mother that I would meet an old school friend, who was totally blind, at the ground. She was more terrified about it than I was, but I would be more terrified now than she was then. I came down on the coach and hooked on to the crowd going to Stamford Bridge. I got to the main gate and started shouted my friend’s name: “Tony.” He answered and I found him. How the hell I managed to find someone else who could not see outside the ground, I do not know.

The second part of that story is that we often rely on the support, encouragement and, sometimes, direct help of others, as we all need to be able to do. In those days football grounds did not have audio-described commentary, as they often do now, so we had to commandeer the poor devil who was fortuitously sitting behind us so that he could give us a commentary. Anyway, it was a one-all draw.

I think that this afternoon’s debate will also be a one-all draw, because I want to finish with a dangerous riposte to the hon. Member for Stourbridge, whose speech I enjoyed. She was very kind to my party in commending us on what we do. I must say that I wish we did it in quite the way she described. If we did, I think that I would be prouder, more encouraged and less concerned. We all have a great deal to do, within our political parties and within our society, to change the nature of how we describe our politics, what we are doing and the way in which we are seen and heard. Perhaps this biennial debate will help to encourage other people to think more positively, to be a little more courageous and, above all, to carry this forward post the general election next year.

15:20

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who not only spent eight years in the Cabinet but was one of the most effective performers on the Labour Front Bench. He has a lot of respect in all parts of the House and has been a role model throughout his time in the Chamber.

The fact that the Chamber is changing will lead to more change. Let us face it: someone would need to be a bit odd to want to stand for Parliament. We were always the odd people at school; most people were interested in football and other things. If people see positive role models in the Chamber who they feel might well represent them, they are more likely to stand for Parliament. Therefore, the changes that have started to occur will continue.

Our system has a great advantage and a great disadvantage—it is called first past the post. I love our electoral system; it is very good. It means that we represent a definable geographical area, that we have to deal with people who do not vote for us—people come into our surgery who voted Labour, Liberal, Conservative or whatever—and that we have to get to know our constituencies very well. That is a big advantage in terms of representation, but it does mean that, on the whole, associations joyfully go ahead in selecting one person. If every association selects the one person they want, that does not necessarily mean that the team we get at the end of the day is balanced or representative. The one advantage of proportional representation, as in the European elections, is that it enables a slightly more balanced approach.

Clearly, all the political parties are signed up to change. The driver of that change is ultimately political competition, because each party wants to get the most votes possible and realises that it can do that only if there is much more balanced representation in the House. Although articles in newspapers often say that there is a deficiency of women voting Conservative, the polling evidence is that as many women now vote Conservative as vote Labour. There is a slight propensity among younger women to vote for the left and older, or more mature, women to vote for the right. However, we need only look at the US presidential elections to see that the very heavy preponderance of young women voting Democrat was probably the reason Obama won the election, because although the margin in terms of the electoral college was quite large, in terms of the vote it was quite narrow.

One of the things that makes me feel that the situation will continue to improve is that we have a very competitive political system. All the political parties want to get the maximum number of votes, and they all realise that that necessitates changing the manner in which we carry out our selections. That sometimes means educating our own best friends. We all have in our associations people we have known for years and dearly love, and who are great supporters, but sometimes do not always act in a way that is in the broadest, greatest interests of the party. Political parties have to try to persuade their own members that change is necessary. That is a big challenge for those of us who have been in elected politics for a number of years. The Conservative party has changed in the way it sometimes carries out selections. That is to be commended and is starting to have results.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman that the role of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has not helped. People with caring responsibilities, particularly those with children, are not well catered for in the expenses system. The abolition of the resettlement grant is a retrograde step. If we have fixed five-year Parliaments, a Member coming up to their 60s has a choice whether to go or to stay for five years. If there is a financial incentive to go early, that will mean more selections, and if there are more selections we will have a more diverse House, so it is a simple way of getting change. If we abolish the resettlement grant, there is always the temptation for a Member to hang on for one more term, even when they may have lost interest. I hope that IPSA revisits this, because there ought to be positive incentives to manage people out of this House rather than the other way around. As we all know—we all have our dear friends in this House—there comes a time when everybody has to go, and usually it is sooner rather than later.

The Speaker and many other people in this House—there are many great examples of role models in the Chamber—have changed the nature of politics. We have to amend the expenses system to make it more family-friendly. For many years, the Conservative party was run by women, and many of them dominate our associations and our local councils, but the problem is getting them into this House. It is not necessarily about women, but about women with children—that has always been the biggest barrier. It is vital to deal with caring responsibilities, and sometimes it is very important to educate my own party in that regard. I am glad to see that both the leadership and most of our parliamentary party understand that, which is why we are making progress.

Parliament is richer for having more diverse representation. That gives people a different perspective, and that perspective makes us all better representatives because we are dealing with people whose life’s contribution and life story is somewhat different from our own experience. Meeting other people and picking up people from less traditional backgrounds is important and makes for better Members of Parliament.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing this debate. I hope we continue to make progress, and I am sure we will, but my main message today is that political competition will be the driver of that. If all of us do our best to encourage people who want to come into politics from a range of areas, I am sure we will end up with a more diverse and a more vibrant House.

15:25

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I was proud to serve as a member of the Speaker’s Conference and I want to reflect on some of its broader aspects, because I think it is regarded as being just about how to change the composition of the House of Commons. In fact, it was a big reflection on democracy and politics. I strongly recommend to Members that they read the whole report because there is not enough in politics today that makes the case for political parties and for an active democracy. That is what I think the conference did.

The reason issues of representation became so core to this is that in order for democracy to work, people need to trust politics. In order to trust those of us who are professional politicians, they have to think that we get what is happening in their lives. That means that we have to look normal to them. When the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), demonstrated the other day that the composition of the Front Bench of the governing party was all-male on that day, one of the reasons why that had so much resonance was the sense that half the country felt that they were not there —that we are extremely odd, peculiar, not like them. Until there is a sense that politics gets it and that it is like us, that gap of trust between the voter and the votee, if I may call us that, will grow. It is extremely significant.

It is only in the past four years, for example, that we have had any Muslim women in this Parliament. On the Labour Benches in the previous Parliament, the hon. Members for Gloucester (Parmjit Dhanda) and for Bradford West (Marsha Singh) were Sikhs. Now on the Government Benches the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) is a Sikh. I know that my Sikh constituents believe that I can understand their issues—such as whether Britain was involved in the invasion of the Golden Temple or not—but they want to make sure that somebody who has the gut feeling, the cultural baggage which is so important to them is part of the conversation. Having that genuinely does change the conversation.

I will never forget the conversation that I had with the Clerk to the Defence Committee in about 1998. I asked him whether having women on the Defence Committee had made a difference. It was the first time there had been any women on that Committee ever. “Of course,” he said. I asked what difference. He said, “Well, we always used to talk just about how big the bombs were, and now we talk about the families and children of the soldiers and the other people who are out there defending us.” It seems to me quite obvious that if we are asking someone to be extraordinarily brave, the most important thing for them to know is that their family is safe. It is a no-brainer, but it took women on that Committee to have that insight.

It is true that diversity brings different kinds of insight. If we miss out on those insights, politics is poorer. For example, one of the achievements of the Speaker’s Conference was changing the rules in relation to Members of Parliament who have mental health challenges. The interesting thing since those rules changed is that a number of colleagues have been able to come out and say that they have suffered from poor mental health, and that has helped the general public feel, “Oh, maybe they’re more normal.” Confessing to abnormalities has made people feel that we actually have the same struggles and challenges as them.

I did not want ever to speak in Parliament about the fact that I have multiple sclerosis, and I only did so when it was relevant to a debate on stem cell research. That was really important for one of my constituents. He has a much more severe form of the condition than me, but he felt, “If she can do that, I can step up.” There is a sense that if we show people—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) made this clear—that we are like them and have had different challenges, politics can be more engaging and make more sense to them.

We still have big challenges. I still regularly hear people saying—I speak as the first generation of my family to speak with a southern accent—“Why don’t I hear more politicians speak like me, with an accent?” We really need to address such issues.

Where does this all come from? One of the things that the Speaker’s Conference made clear was the importance of the role of political parties themselves. It said that

“political parties are the mechanism by which people of any background can be actively involved in the tasks of shaping policy and deciding how society should be governed…The extent to which political parties are the subject of both contempt and general public indifference should be a cause of concern to all who are interested in how our country is run.”

That is what I want to address. It seems to me that the biggest risk is to our parties, which are the mechanism through which we can deliver some of the changes needed, yet we do not do it well enough. In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) reminded the parties of the commitment they made to publishing their selection records.

We as politicians know that it is political party activists who only ever go to talk to people about politics and how to vote. I am very proud that I and my Labour colleagues have spoken to at least 18,000 electors in Slough since December. We are very dynamic in the way we go to talk to voters and we can probably claim the best record in the country. That is one of the reasons why I am still the Member of Parliament for Slough, because my constituents know that they can engage with people on the doorstep who are like them—people who might not feel comfortable doing what Members do in this Chamber every day and who might not be able to make the sacrifices in their lives that many of us have made in ours, but who nevertheless recognise that political parties are an agent for change.

One of the things that really worries me is that the media perceive political parties as a conspiracy against the voters and as somehow trying to defraud them, and I believe that we feed that conspiracy by having a lot of private little arrangements to deal with things. For example, we have no formal maternity or sick leave arrangements. Instead, the Whips secretly make deals across the Chamber to pair Members. Why are those things not proper rights and more transparent? We need them to be. The risk of us looking antediluvian and ancient is not just because of who gets here and the fact that we do not reflect the whole of society as well as we ought to, but because of our ancient habits and ways of doing things and our habit of saying across the Chamber, “You’re all bad guys and we’re all good guys.”

At the moment, I am missing a sitting of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. Its members are working across parties—in quite an intelligent way, I hope—to herd the Home Office into producing slightly better legislation than would otherwise occur. Listening to them, people would not be able to tell which party they belong to or what line they are taking, because we are united in a common cause. Members from all parties have united with colleagues from across the Chamber on areas on which they have a common cause.

When we do politics, we should copy Mars, which does not say, “Cadbury is poisonous; go for Mars”, but, “Ours are just better”. In our politics, we have a real problem or challenge about permitting a discourse saying that the other guys are all evil, rather than that we share many values with them, but disagree about some of the ways to deliver those values.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly important point. When accusations are made about really appalling behaviour—bullying—they are not made about or ascribed to an individual behaving badly in the Chamber or outside it, but to a general group of people. For example, they are made about our male colleagues who, on the whole, are kind, supportive and generous individuals. Do such accusations not perpetuate the impression that this place is an ordeal, particularly for women, whereas it is in fact a wonderful place to work and a fantastic job to have? Will she encourage people who complain about bullying to identify its source and complain to Mr Speaker, rather than to tar all our colleagues with the same brush?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I am not sure that the victims of bullying do the tarring; I think that our media are unable to differentiate sufficiently between groups of people, and therefore ask whether men have been the source of the bullying. The situation has got a lot better since I first arrived here and went through a door marked “Members only”—I thought that that was for me—only to find a urinal behind it.

Bullying still occurs, but I do not think that it is only by men of women. I feel guilty when journalists ring me about people shouting in Prime Minister’s questions—I am very reluctant to confess this, but I will do so in front of Mr Speaker—because I have a voice that can very easily be heard and I have been known to behave inappropriately at Prime Minister’s questions. It is not a wholly male thing, because I have done it. I have taken a vow to stop, and I will keep trying to do so. I have also taken a vow to give up chocolate and alcohol during Lent, but I digress.

The hon. Lady’s point is that there is a risk in saying that a whole class of people is guilty of inappropriate behaviour. One thing that we fail to do is to say that the class of people wanting to represent others is, on the whole, made up of people who are honest and want to make a better world, even though some of them have a very funny idea of what that world should look like. We have not done enough to advocate democratic politics as a better way than any other of changing the world and building a better society. Out of this debate should come very strong consensus throughout Parliament about such a belief, as well as a belief that to make politics stronger, it must be less peculiar, involve more normal people and be more possible for people with a range of challenges in their lives.

We need to make our behaviour to each other more supportive here, so that it is more possible for people to do things. Although I have not had detailed conversations with the women on the Government Benches who will be leaving Parliament shortly, I think that partly what is happening is that they are people whose lives were quite normal; who have not been through generations of hateful politics and developed skin a mile thick; and who found the change to their lives, their income and their families very challenging. They have thought, “What I am giving up and what I am having to put up with is too much.”

We all need to have a bit more solidarity for one another, so that people who want to do that noble thing of representing constituents and building a better world do not get put off by the exigencies of public life. We could all help to meet that challenge through our own behaviour, whether it is by shouting less at Prime Minister’s questions or by offering just a little support to someone when they are having a hard time. Frankly, that is something that political parties do not do sufficiently for our colleagues.

15:39

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I particularly agreed with the final part of her speech. She was entirely right to say that we do not always help ourselves in this place. For those of us who do not come from particularly political backgrounds—I did serve as a local councillor for a while, but that was very different from this job—the torrent of abuse that we often have to put up with and the invasion into what were previously perfectly normal lives can be difficult to take. It has made me question on more than one occasion whether I want to continue doing this.

This has been an interesting debate. As I intimated in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), I want to talk about social class. Much has been said about gender. This place is under-representative in terms of gender, race and sexuality, but it is also under-representative in terms of social class. That is not often spoken about. There is an intense debate about all-women shortlists. I have always come back at people by saying that there is little use in replacing a privately educated, middle-class man with a privately educated, middle-class woman if the person who misses out is, for example, a working-class, northern mechanic. That does not increase diversity in this place in any real sense.

The only tag that I am interested in applying to myself, apart from the Conservative tag for the purposes of the election, is a working-class tag. I am proud to be from a working-class background. I am the son of a school secretary and a foundry worker. My dad lost his job in the recession of the early ’90s and we spent a considerable period on benefits. He later got a job as a market gardener, which he still does at 69 years of age. I could not have asked for more loving or hard-working parents.

I attended a local comprehensive school in Hull. It was so bad that it was closed down twice. I am probably the one and only Member of Parliament who will come from that school.

I come from a completely non-political background. Most of my family voted Labour. I had a great-granddad who was apparently something of a communist agitator in the ’30s. He was the only political person in my family. The rest of them were Liberals, apart from my grandma, who was a Tory.

I am proud of that background. I am also proud to be the first member of my family to go to university. My parents were the first generation in my family to buy their own home. My grandparents all grew up and lived until they died in social housing or private rented housing. We are all the sum total of our experiences. I am proud of that background, not that I like to whine on about it too much.

I have also been a teacher, which makes me very unusual—a working-class, northern Tory from the public sector. My last workplace was a primary school and that was very under-representative as well, but in that case it was men who were under-represented. It is not only this place that needs to do more to be representative.

Without wanting to whine on, let me say a little about the challenges and difficulties of getting here for someone who comes from a normal background and does not have any money behind them. I was lucky in that I ended up on the parliamentary A-list. I always joke that it was because I turned up for the interview in a frock, but it was not. I hope it was because the party saw that I was working-class—I will not say normal; we will leave others to judge that—and from a profession that was not well represented on these Benches. However, that was largely irrelevant to me because I would have been able to stand in my area as a local candidate.

I was lucky that the selection processes for 2010 had changed somewhat, but in all parties our selection processes still favour people who come from a certain professional or educational background. At many difficult comprehensive schools, pupils simply keep their heads down and try to get on with surviving school, rather than putting themselves forward for things that might exist in other places such as debating societies—not at my school—or wanting to be something called a head boy or a prefect. We did not have anything like that. In many difficult inner-city comprehensive schools, pupils simply keep their heads down and get used to not raising them above the parapet, but the selection process for getting to this place is the complete opposite.

Selection used to be a case of having to make set-piece speeches—who does that benefit? As a school teacher, I was okay doing that; I just thought I was speaking to a load of five-year-olds—actually, they are more frightening that the selection executives of local Conservative associations. However, it certainly feeds into the fact that a lawyer or a barrister will be more used to doing that kind of thing and feel more comfortable with it. We must recognise that the processes sometimes have an in-built advantage for certain people.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend is not making a speech against the selection of old Etonians is he?

[Andrew Percy]

No, not at all. I am making a speech in favour of ensuring that we select the best people, and create processes that allow the best people—from whatever background or social class—to come forward and succeed.

A lot of the time, we end up with non-local professionals who come in and take the seats. They often do a very good job, but that sometimes disadvantages local candidates whose hearts may be a bit more in their local area. As somebody who came to this with no personal or family wealth, I spent three and a half to four years as a candidate fighting for a marginal seat and not knowing whether at the end I would achieve my aim of getting elected to Parliament. That is a big risk that would put off many people, particularly if they have small children.

The financial commitment is huge. I was lucky to have a very supportive association, and to get a lot of support from the Conservative party, for which I am grateful. I had a really good chairman and agent, Councillor Rob Waltham, who was there to provide support where necessary. One of my local councillors, Caroline Fox, lives round the corner from me, and I would not have survived the three and a half years without her constant support, whether in the form of meals or saying, “I’ll give you a hand in the house,” or whatever. I would not have got here without people such as them.

The time commitment and the impact it has on a career is massive. As I said, I was a school teacher, but I started teaching part time in order to try to achieve my aim of winning the constituency from the sitting Member. That has a massive financial impact, and an impact on my career. Had I not won the seat I would have been greatly disadvantaged and gone back to teaching part time in the primary school where I was when I was elected. That is a great job to have, but it would have left me financially much worse off.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. One thing that was always a bit unfair before we had fixed-term Parliaments was that prospective parliamentary candidates were disadvantaged because they had to prepare for three possible timings of election campaigns, whereas Members of Parliament had a better idea and were more financially secure. Does he agree that fixed-term Parliaments will be a great help in creating a more level playing field for people wanting to get into Parliament?

[Andrew Percy]

Absolutely, I could not agree more. Those of us who had been selected early had the prospect of the 2007 general election, which did not happen. I remember thinking at the time, “Please, Lord, just let this election happen”, and that was only 12 months into being the candidate. I wanted it to be over.

There was then the constant question of when the election would come. From a career point of view, what could I say to my head teacher? I was very lucky at Berkeley infant school to have had a lot of support from the deputy head teacher, Sarah Shepperson, who was also my job share. She was there to take over, and was happy to take over, from me if I was elected. That uncertainty—will the election be in three months’ time or six months’ time?—is a killer. I completely agree that fixed-term Parliaments at least deal with that side of it. They do not deal with the prospect of spending three-and-a-half years flogging what is ultimately a dead donkey, so we need to bear that in mind.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I just wanted to follow up on the hon. Gentleman’s point on some of the difficulties that face people if they stand. Recommendation 37 of the Speaker’s Conference states:

“The Government should legislate to enable approved prospective parliamentary candidates who are employees to take unpaid leave, rather than resigning their employment, for the period from the dissolution of Parliament”.

That is just one step towards making it possible for more people to stand.

[Andrew Percy]

Absolutely. That deals with the issue during dissolution, but unfortunately it does not deal with the preceding three-and-a-half years. I think it was estimated on ConservativeHome that the average cost to a candidate was about £40,000. That is not only from having to stomach the cost of large parts of one’s own campaign—feeding the students who come out and help; they are even poorer than the candidate, allegedly—but from the loss of the income that would have come from career advancement.

Despite all that, I am glad to have got here. Lots of other colleagues got here too. I am lucky that my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), is a fellow local working-class lad, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) is a former McDonald’s employee. She trained me at McDonald’s in Hull, when I was 16 and she was a student—she was a taskmistress, but we will not go into that. She is the first Tracey to have been elected to Parliament. I cannot claim to be the first Percy, as one of them tried to blow this place up. I am assured that there is no family connection, although the Whips have often wondered whether that is my ultimate aim.

I want to say something on the role of the public, on expenses and on what Parliament is like. I do not care about people’s background: I treat people as they treat me and I think it is great that we have Members from a whole range of backgrounds. I get sick of being told that I am in a posh party. That really does rankle with me, because there are plenty of Conservative Members who are not posh and there are plenty of Labour Members who are.

This institution is a bit odd. It is not like real life. That is partly because of the nature of the environment in which we operate. It sometimes feels very much like a private members club. I remember going into the Tea Room for the first time and being told, “You can’t sit on this side, because that’s where Labour Members sit.” When I go to Starbucks or Mae’s Tearoom in Goole, I sit wherever there is a spare table, so that seemed like a strange thing. With the wooden panels, the way people speak, the cliques and all the rest of it, it is a bit like a private members club. I know that you, Mr Speaker, and others here have done a lot to try to challenge that, but there is still more to do. The processes are a bit stuffy. If one asks a question, even to Officers of the House, one can be spoken to as if it is a terrible question or as if one is an imbecile—which I may be.

What do we do? We could get people interested from a young age. I was a bit odd in the sense that I was interested in politics at William Gee school in Hull—not many pupils were. I had that interest and drive regardless of wealth, but we have to get people from different backgrounds in here through paid internships. We also need to avoid tokenism. I was disgusted with the debate on which party has the most women MPs who are retiring. I understand that a greater percentage of women MPs on the Labour Benches have said that they are not standing at the next election than have those on the Conservative Benches—I believe it is 13% compared with 11%. That whole debate was thoroughly filthy. We should also establish non-ministerial routes for career progression, so that there is an alternative for those who do not want to move forward.

Finally, the public have a role, too. Unfortunately, driven perhaps by the expenses scandal—justifiably in some cases, not in others—there is something of a hate campaign against politicians. The judgment is constantly made that we got into Parliament only to feather our own nests, milk the expenses system, or, in some way, sell favours to our wealthy friends. Well, that is not the case for the vast majority of us, if any of us. Every institution, including this place, has its bad apples over the generations, but the constant torrents of abuse and the questioning of our motives is a real disincentive for people who might otherwise come here and want to stay here.

MPs are, ultimately, normal human beings, but when we try to come across as normal, we are told “You are only doing that because you want to be seen as normal.” We cannot win. When I went into the kebab shop in Goole at 2 am one night, one of the patrons there, although thoroughly lovely to me, told me that it was a scandal that I was in the kebab shop at two in the morning. The disconnection between what people think politicians are and what we really are must change, and the public have a role to play in that.

I am just someone who happens to do a job. This is the job that I do now, but before I did this job I was a teacher, and before I did that I did other jobs, including working at McDonald’s. I am still a human being. I still have a family and friends as everyone does—as we all do here. We are all human beings. Until the agenda of hate against politicians ceases, we will not get more normal people into this place, because the only people prepared to put themselves forward will be people who are a little bit odd.

15:46

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) for initiating the debate. I suppose that it is a measure of how far we have come that both the Front Bench spokespersons are from diverse backgrounds, which is very pleasing.

Before I entered the House of Commons in 2010, I used to watch the evidence sessions of the Speaker’s Conference, and I suppose that, in a way, that gave me the motivation to have one last fling, as they say. I had been trying to get into this place for a number of years, but had been unsuccessful. Then there were a great many retirements, which benefited me because plenty of seats became available. It was probably the Speaker’s Conference that finally pushed me into making another attempt, and I think that it also sent a message to the political parties that certain things had to change.

The first point that I want to make is about the qualities that we have. I do not think that there are such things as male and female qualities. Some women—including me, it could be said—enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, or challenging people, and some men do not. I think we should acknowledge that we have a mixture of patterns of behaviour. We know that many men nowadays take out the rubbish and change nappies. There is even a new word for them. I do not know whether you know it, Mr Speaker, but they are described as “metrosexuals”. They like facials, and wear moisturiser. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] So we are changing.

I am sure many Members will know that it took both men and women in the House to push forward the change in the hours, which has made a huge difference in giving us a decent, family-friendly workplace. The leaders of the three main parties, all of them men, supported that proposal.

My second point is about diversity. As many Members have pointed out, diversity is important because it is important for us to look like the country overall—to represent the full range of people, both able-bodied and non-able-bodied, including people with different conditions. Let me give an example of the way in which Members with long-term conditions have changed the way in which Parliament works. People with epilepsy used not to be allowed to climb to the top of the Clock Tower to see Big Ben. It took two of my co-members of the all-party parliamentary group on epilepsy, the hon. Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), to do such a thing. They climbed the Tower, as a result of which the rule was changed. Anyone can climb the Tower now, including people with epilepsy, but if those two Members had not done so, the change would never have happened. I apologise for not telling them that I was going to mention them in the debate, but I will write to them later.

As many Members will know, people in a number of professions—including some in Parliament—used to say things like “This is not a woman’s job”, and women were kept out of those professions. There were quotas: for instance, only a certain number of women could become doctors. It is only when women and people from different backgrounds are given opportunities that others can see just how capable we all are.

How do we address that need? You, Mr Speaker, are doing a huge amount to change our way of doing business in Parliament. For instance, when you call Members to speak in debates, you alternate between the two sides of the House, and check whether the women have spoken. We owe you a debt of gratitude for the way in which you are changing Parliament. I was very honoured to be part of your delegation to Burma, Mr Speaker. When we were there people were asking, “How do you change Parliament?” I think you will recall that I gave them the example of how you have changed the way we take part in debates. You look around and see who has not spoken before—Members on the Back Benches, for example—and do not necessarily give first place to Members on the Front Benches or those who have had a lot of speaking time. You are going some way towards addressing the way Parliament works, therefore, and it is much appreciated, certainly from the 2010 intake.

How do we address these matters? We must have a level playing field. That involves ensuring, as many Members have said, access to opportunities and to support, which you are also doing, Mr Speaker. Judges used to be picked by a tap on the shoulder, and that was the same in lots of different professions—I think in previous times many Members of Parliament were picked in that way.

Turning to positive action, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) talked about business. She is right that it is moving ahead of us in certain aspects. Many businesses now have crèches, and when women have to go on a career break they do not come back to a lower stage than they were at; their position is protected. So we do have something to learn from businesses.

Let us focus on the question of positive action. It is always the case that people have to fulfil the criteria for the post. They are not the lesser candidate because there is positive action; they are of equal stature and they have fulfilled the requirements for the post. We have to look at where there is underrepresentation, and in some instances men will be given positive action. We start from the premise that everyone can do the job. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made a very amusing speech, but he will see when we serve on the Health Committee together that a stream of people from a certain section of society—we can call them white males if we like—give evidence even though the health service has a very diverse work force.

Equal opportunities does not mean some will be excluded. The greatest gift of a diverse Parliament or work force is that everyone will feel included.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind remarks, and may I just say that there are, I think, seven further Members who wish to contribute to the debate and the winding-up speeches will need to start no later than 4.40 pm and we should allow a small amount of time for a winding-up speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), so we will need speeches of approximately five minutes each, if colleagues can discipline themselves?

16:02

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I will certainly do my best to stick to that, Mr Speaker.

I want to contribute to this debate from the point of view of someone who is perhaps by all accounts regarded as being a member of the class that is too represented in this House: someone who is white, male—

[Andrew Percy]

From Lancashire.

[Mr Nuttall]

Originally from Yorkshire, if you don’t mind, but I will come to that in a minute.

I come to this debate from the perspective of being white and male and, because I was a solicitor by profession before I entered the House, I would be widely regarded as being middle-class. That points to the archetypal criticism that is thrown at Members particularly on the Conservative Benches: it is said that our Benches are stuffed full with white middle-class males.

That is not the whole story, however, because we need to look more widely than that. We must look at a person’s background. I came from an ordinary working-class background in the north of England—in south Yorkshire, where my father was a steelworker in the rolling mills in Sheffield. On that score, by all accounts I am underrepresented in this House. So statistics can be made to prove anything really. The statistics show that there were 48 solicitors among the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members elected to the House in 2010—some 7.7% of all Members—so we are certainly over-represented. We should not try to ensure that every group in society is equally represented; that cannot be done.

I was a solicitor, but I regarded myself as a small business man. As a partner, I was running a small business. I had responsibility for finance, marketing, personnel, administration, complying with regulations and so on. By that score, I should be regarded as having been a small business man. Incidentally, when I was running the practice, more than 90% of the 40 or so staff that we employed were women. I remember one occasion when we had all gone out for an evening meal. I was the only gentlemen among 20 or 30 women. At the end of the evening, a guy came over to me and said, “Crikey, I don’t know what you do, but I wish I had your job!” He was amazed to see me with all those ladies on the table.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On what table?

[Mr Nuttall]

The table in the dining room.

When people recruit for businesses like mine and when political parties choose candidates for selection to this House, they should choose the best person for the job, regardless of physical characteristics—male or female, white or black, Christian or Muslim, Hindu or Jew, gay or straight; it should not matter. We should simply choose the best person for the job. We should not try to engineer a situation in which the membership of this House matches exactly, or even approximately, the make-up of British society.

I should like to refer briefly to the Bradford West by-election, which was triggered by the death of the sitting Labour MP. The 2011 census showed that 54% of the population in that constituency were Asian or British Asian, with just 37% white. The Labour candidate was Mr Imran Hussain, a Muslim, who was the deputy leader of Bradford council. He was no outsider; he was not parachuted in from London. Any observer would have thought he was the ideal candidate, yet, as we all know he lost not by just a few votes but by more than 10,000 votes, and he was beaten by a man who is white—the present hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway). The residents of that constituency decided that the hon. Gentleman was the best man to represent them, despite the demographics of the constituency. The diversity of this House is about more than just race or religion; it is also about the background and life experiences of Members.

Let us trust the people to send the right people to this House to represent them. We should not take artificial measures to tinker with the make-up of the House, because that will inevitably mean that someone who would otherwise have been the best person for the job ends up being discriminated against.

16:08

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate, and I pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the work that you have done in this respect.

The underrepresentation of specific sectors of society has been well documented. We understand clearly that we need diversity in order to be representative, to bring in new priorities and to speak for a whole range of people. It is no coincidence that, when a critical mass of more than 100 women Labour MPs were elected to Parliament at the 1997 election, there was a real difference in the types of topics that were talked about here. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has already mentioned the Defence Committee. The agenda in the House focused much more on a range of subjects including maternity and paternity leave, carers, flexible working and equality legislation. We debated a raft of issues that would probably not have come to prominence had there not been such a critical mass of women in the House.

That did not just happen, however. We are 57th in the world in terms of women’s representation. We are behind not only many of the progressive countries but some of the countries with a very traditional view of women’s roles. They are catching up with us fast.

Let me remind people of where we are with regard to women MPs. From 2005 to 2010, some 98 out of 356 Labour MPs were women, 27%; 17 out of 192 Conservative MPs were women, 9%; and 10 out of 62 Liberal Democrats were women, 14%. In 2010, Labour went up to 32% and the Conservatives to 16%; and the Liberal Democrats went down to 12%. It may be significant that there have been no Liberal Democrats in the Chamber for this debate, apart from the brief appearance by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt).

It is not good enough to allow things just to happen, which is probably the Liberal Democrats’ way of doing things. They think everyone is a nice person, and therefore things will change. However, we are not starting from a level playing field. We need to look at why the representation is as it is now, and what more we can do to encourage people to come through. It is easy to describe the situation, but much more difficult to do something about it.

We must put in place positive steps. We cannot allow chance to make things happen. We need to look at why people are not coming through. What is stopping them? Why are we beginning to stagnate in some respects? Why are we not moving forward in the way in which we would all like to do?

We do not have enough role models. We are beginning to have a few role models who are women and a few role models from different ethnic minority groups. A few people have come from diverse backgrounds, and a few represent those with certain disabilities. None the less, if we ask the person in the street what comes into their mind when they hear the word “MP”, they say a middle-aged white male. We are beginning to see more diversity among reporters and news presenters on television, but there are still some fields that are significantly under-represented.

There is a huge tendency for everyone to pick people who are like themselves. That has been well documented in lots of human resources work about equal opportunities interviewing. The tendency is to choose a person who speaks like us, looks like us and who does things in the way that we do.

One of the key requirements for this job is an immense amount of self confidence, which can be a major obstacle. If we look at the work done in schools, we tend to find that in primary school, children are relatively confident whatever their background. As they get into secondary school, we find significant differences between the way boys and girls perceive themselves. Children who consider themselves to be not so bright academically think that they are second rate compared with those more successful pupils. We often hear children saying, “Oh, they never pick anyone from this class.” They may also say that about the street in which they live. We must deal with that sort of attitude, because confidence is such a key part of political representation. We have to believe that we can do something and that we can make that difference, so confidence is one of the things that we need to look at again and again.

If we take schools, we find that not enough is being done about citizenship lessons. In Wales, we now have the Welsh baccalaureate, which makes pupils look at the way that society and politics work, but that is not widespread, and not rolled out in the same way across England.

School councils can be effective in primary schools. Quite often, young pupils come forward with good ideas, and they have opportunities to implement them. In secondary schools, there is less of a direct connection between what pupils come up with and what can be implemented, partly because of the size of the schools and partly because of the cynicism of teenagers. It is more difficult at that stage for young people to have the opportunities to participate in a democratic way.

If we look around Portcullis House, we see far more young men than young women. Again, what are we doing about the people who ask to come here and to take advantage of the opportunities that this place offers? I think more young men than young women approach this place, and more people from privileged backgrounds than less privileged backgrounds. We must take steps to improve that situation.

It is not for me to comment on the selection procedures in other parties, so I will talk about what happens in my party. The key is to make sure that it is not easier for people who have had a lot of opportunity to know what the procedure is like to do better than those who have not. I very much welcome the fact that on Saturday I will be at a special conference where we will be examining the opportunity to limit expenditure on selection procedures. However, this is not just about expenditure; it is also about time, because, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), there are implications in respect of having to give things up and do a lot of work early on. I put my name forward and very much worked full-time in my job, and it was a lot more difficult for me than it might have been for someone who had time available to them.

We need to make sure that we get all those things in place, but we also need to bring forward a range of candidates—we need to be looking for people. That is not because we do not want a level playing field—we do want one, but the playing field is not level to start with. That is why we have to make the extra effort, particularly for those from less privileged backgrounds. We also need a better geographical selection, because there can be a tendency for people from London and the south-east to go to represent a seat elsewhere, and we have a geographical imbalance in where people come from.

On the IPSA issue, it is important that we never have a system whereby people who do not have wealth behind them cannot be MPs; we must make sure that it is possible for people to be MPs. I worry that it may be very difficult to attract people who are the main earner in the family and between the ages of 35 and 50 if we do not get the MPs’ expenses system right. It must be possible for someone to be that person, otherwise we will have only very young people or people who are older and able to take a drop in salary. It is important that we get all those things right, but it is not a matter of trying to create special privileges; it is a matter of trying to put right inequalities and bring forward more people from all sectors of our society.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The wind-ups from the Front Benchers are due to start at 4.40 pm, and half a dozen colleagues still wish to speak. I know that colleagues can do the arithmetic for themselves, and I hope they will try to help me to help them.

16:17

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and I welcome today’s motion, for the fact remains that, notwithstanding recent progress, both women and ethnic minorities are woefully under-represented in our Parliament today. So what are the facts? As we have heard, we have 27 ethnic minority MPs, which is just 4% of the total number of MPs, whereas about 18%—not the 8% mentioned earlier—of the population are represented in the 2011 census as coming from a non-white background. We have 147 women MPs in Parliament, which represents 23% of all MPs, whereas just over 50% of the population are women. Clearly, we can do better and we must do better.

As co-chairman and co-founder of Women2Win, I intend to limit my remarks to what my organisation has been doing to address the concerns legitimately raised in the motion. Parliament and political representation is made stronger by diversity, and we should all be working to make this change happen. Without buy-in from men, attempts to encourage more women into Parliament will not be as successful as they could be, so we all need to engage with the issue of diversity of representation. I strongly believe that, which is why I co-founded Women2Win in 2005, in order to work with other parliamentarians to address the imbalance. Back then, there were only 17 female Conservative MPs—a paltry 9% of our MPs. Women2Win was launched in November 2005 by myself and Baroness Jenkin to support and enable more Conservative women to gain election to Parliament. Women2Win helps a substantial number of women candidates to gain selection and election, through headhunting, mentoring, training and supporting in a variety of ways. Over the course of 2013, we have had more than 30 MPs volunteering their time and expertise to run training sessions and to mentor candidates, and I am pleased to say that more than half of those volunteers have been men.

I will take a moment to give special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), the vice-chairman of Women2Win, who, as our head of training, has dedicated countless hours to ensuring that we are doing everything we can to increase the number of women applying for seats and doing so successfully. Over the course of 2013, we have provided more than 150 hours of training to women candidates, and the feedback and success have been extremely positive.

We have made progress since 2005. Indeed, given the leadership provided by the Prime Minister on this issue, with the support of organisations such as Women2Win and the Conservative Women’s Organisation, we saw the number of women go up from 17 to 49 in 2010. We also saw the number of ethnic minority MPs in our party rise from two to 11.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who recently pointed out:

“On the important issue of getting more women into public life…this is…important for our country, because we will not represent or govern our country properly unless we have more women at every level in our public life and in our politics.”

He ended his statement with the words,

“we need to do much more.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 264.]

Amen to that.

I believe that, with more women in politics and public life in general, we not only get better decision making but better policy outcomes for the country as a whole. More women in politics will mean more role models, leading to a virtuous circle whereby, hopefully, political associations will increasingly select and the public in general will increasingly elect women to become their representatives in Parliament.

In my party, we will continue to work hard to strive for more equitable representation in Parliament as we head towards the 2015 general election and beyond. Indeed, my slogan for the 2020 general election campaign would be, “50:50 by 2020.”

Let me end my speech by thanking my co-chairman and co-founder of Women2Win, Baroness Anne Jenkin; the director of Women2Win, Ellen Miller; our vice-chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham; and our chief operating officer, Resham Kotecha, and her predecessor, Dolly Theis. I am delighted to support the motion.

16:19

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) for leading this important debate. I apologise for being absent for the opening remarks; I was called to an urgent meeting with the Opposition Chief Whip, the details of which I will not bore Members with.

I have found the debate interesting and helpful. At times, it has felt as if it has been quite therapeutic for some hon. Members. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed it and I want to add my two-penn’orth, as we would say in Lancashire, and to concentrate on some of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) about working and social backgrounds. I agree that we need to make more progress as regards gender, race and disability, but although we are doing so a little slowly, we are making some progress nevertheless.

As for social background, in 1979 nearly 100 MPs had backgrounds in manual work, which was about 15% of all MPs at that time. If we fast-forward to today, 22 MPs have a background in manual work, which is just 4% of all MPs. To put that in context, 20% of the country’s work force are skilled or unskilled workers. To get a House of Commons that reflects the working lives of people in this country, we would have to sack 105 hon. Members and replace them with manual workers. I have no doubt that you, Mr Speaker, could identify some of the people up for dismissal and replacement.

This is an important point. I do not want to enter into some sort of Monty Python sketch with the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole about background, work experience and life experience, but like him I come from what would be described as a humble background. It is important that there are more people in this place who represent the wider communities out there.

My worry is that we are getting too many politicians from white-collar professional backgrounds, and too many politicians effectively come from what is known as the Westminster bubble. Many of those hon. Members are very good at their job, I hasten to add, but we need more of a mix. The journalist Peter Oborne has talked about the idea that there is a closed shop, or guild, for politicians, and I worry that that is very much to the fore at the moment. All political parties need to do more to dilute that.

The final area that I want to talk about is business experience. The Labour party has been very good at diversifying the make-up of those on the Opposition Benches, but it has been particularly poor when it comes to getting Members with a business background. Figures from the Library show that just 20 Labour MPs out of 257 have a business background. We could do more to encourage people with business experience, particularly experience of micro-business and small and medium-sized enterprises, to stand for our party.

There are no easy solutions, and I will not go into lots of detail, because of the time, but we need to put more effort into encouraging people to come forward for selection, and to change the culture in our political parties. Earlier this week, I wrote a piece for the Manchester Evening News about having a turnout threshold for elections of, for argument’s sake, 20%, so that if not enough people voted in an election, there would be no political representative. That is quite controversial, but it would concentrate political parties’ minds on who they selected and whether that person related to the community that they were trying to represent. It would certainly make candidates work harder. Also, if MPs in safer seats perhaps relaxed too much, there would be an emphasis on them to get out and do more. There is also an argument for looking at primaries.

To conclude, there is a long way to go before we can really say that we have a Parliament that reflects the people of this country. There are steps that we can take to address the problems before us; only by taking those steps will we get a Parliament that looks like the country that it represents—male and female, black and white, rich and poor. Hon. Members might even call that a one nation approach to representation.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. With a maximum of 13 minutes left, there are still four Back-Bench colleagues wishing to contribute; I simply put that on the record.

16:27

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I will be as quick as I can, Mr Speaker. Fifty-one per cent. of our population are women, so if we are to be fair, 51% of Members of Parliament should be women. There should be more chance of the Prime Minister being a woman than a man under those circumstances. Looking at the numbers, the Labour party does better than the other parties by a factor of at least two, but no political party reflects our population, so how can we balance the equation better? The best way is for society to change, so that people do not even question the idea that women should naturally be in Parliament.

Things are changing through societal evolution, rather than revolution. As hon. Members can tell, I am entering young old age, and I accept that some, particularly on the Conservative Benches, will look at me as a dinosaur. I somewhat reflect my generation. I freely admit that I have not done enough to equal the effort made by my wife when it comes to my family; it is something like 90% effort from her, and 10% from me. Maintaining our home has really been up to her, and I am not a very good father, at least in terms of care, but my children—I have several—are very different from their old man. Those with children of their own do not even question the need to share duties, the idea that women should be equal, or the idea that Parliament should be made up equally of men and women. That is wonderful.

Everyone wants more women in Parliament, but fellow Members will agree that we also want the very best people in our society to represent our society, male or female.

16:30

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I shall curtail my remarks. I was going to talk about the need for more working-class representation, on which I fully support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).

On the selection process, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) mentioned primary elections, which help to broaden the base of those who make selections. I acknowledge that it would be unrealistic to have a widespread primary process in which all constituents could be involved, but using semi-open primaries similar to that through which I was selected would broaden that base. The process probably trebled the number of people who attended my final selection round, many of whom were not members of the local party.

A recent survey by Professor Philip Cowley, in which he asked members of the public two questions, demonstrates the importance of broadening the base. In effect, the public said that they wanted a Member of Parliament who was more like them, and the proportion of people saying that increased as one went down the socio-economic scale. The Speaker’s Conference mentioned social class as one of the supply-side barriers that might stop individuals coming forward for selection, as well as the public’s perception of a typical MP.

Those from a similar background to mine rarely consider a political career, although I am pleased that they are more likely to do so nowadays. My parents were proud to call themselves working-class Tories, and as I have progressed through the ranks, I have appreciated that there is a wider spread of such people than I thought on our Benches and among the Conservative party at large. I attended a bilateral state school, which meant that it had grammar and secondary modern streams, with children having the ability to move between them. Such schools would be a useful addition to the education mix that we have today. At the time I left my secondary school, people had little chance of a university career, as only 6% or 7% of people moved on to universities from state schools. I eventually graduated at the age of 54.

Time and chance also play a great role in our lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is in the Chamber, and he encouraged me to put my name forward as a candidate for my home town of Cleethorpes. I remember the day distinctly because he made his suggestion as we were driving home from a meeting of Cleethorpes Conservative ladies’ luncheon club. That august body is still in existence and does a grand job for our party.

All parties have become more representative, but we need to do a great deal more and modest financial support from our parties would not go amiss. However, I sense, Mr Speaker, that you want to move on to the next speech, so I shall call it a day there.

[Mr Speaker]

That is extremely public spirited of the hon. Gentleman.

16:33

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I congratulate everyone who has been involved in moving things on so well since the Speaker’s Conference report was published.

The Conservative party has done a great deal in the past few years to increase the number of women on our Back Benches and, most importantly, the number of high-quality women on our Back Benches—[Hon. Members: “What about the Front Bench?”] On all our Benches. What was so infuriating about the photo of a couple of weeks ago is that we already have 20% female representation on our Front Bench. We now have a golden pipeline of high-quality female Members who are ready to move on to the Front Bench, which means that the Prime Minister will be able to hit his 30% representation target soon.

There are people in our party whom we need to thank. There are people who have unfortunately passed away, such as John Maples and Shireen Ritchie, and those such as Gareth Fox and Davina Merison, and many others, including David Jones who runs our assessment centres. We have put in place a phenomenal competency-based programme, and that has produced so many excellent female—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I am just going to keep going. The criticisms of the Prime Minister on this issue are absolutely unwarranted.

We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) about the work that we are doing as a party, but we need to back the work that the House of Commons and Mr Speaker are doing to promote this place outside. Mr Speaker seems to get a lot of criticism for doing foreign trips and promoting this place. He seems to get a lot of criticism for educational initiatives, which my constituents cry out for. They want more of these initiatives. Why on earth he is getting this hassle for promoting this wonderful cradle of democracy I do not know. I just encourage him to keep pushing forward.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has done a great deal for parliamentary staff. We have 100% maternity pay. Ira Madden has done great work in the occupational health area, but there is a lot more to do. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) has her commission set up, and I hope that that will look at some fundamental questions, such as why my friend Bridget Harris is having to fight in the media about groping allegations. Why, when I speak to other colleagues, do they say that this is not unknown today? Why are 140 crimes taking place on this estate, with about three or four in the last 21 months against women? Why are sexually charged words and phrases used in the media in relation to female Ministers and Members, whereas that lexicon and that dialogue are not used for male Members? How do we make this place more family-friendly? Mr Speaker had a lot of hassle about the crèche, but for a new dad like me that is vital to me doing my job and keeping my deal with my wife.

How do we ensure that everyone in the House becomes obsessed about the pipeline issues that we have spoken about? We must all worry about and obsess about that. Most importantly, how do we ensure that as many men as possible realise that the current position is unsustainable? We have to nail this in the next couple of years by finding more women, more diverse candidates, to come here and be part of our democratic process.

16:37

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This has been a good debate and we all, even reactionaries like me, are desperate to have more women in Parliament. I am. I think women MPs are much more interesting in so many ways. Do we want legions of more young, grey, ambitious men in suits? No, we want more women. We are all united. But let me say a word of caution. We must move with society. We cannot impose structures and while we should worry about the lack of Conservative women MPs, we should have confidence in our own beliefs and in the way that society matures to ensure that we have more women MPs. Therefore, I am strongly opposed to all-women shortlists.

Ultimately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, there is no point in a constituency denying a strong local working-class man being the Member of Parliament by insisting that in that particular constituency, where perhaps he has worked for years, there must be an all-women shortlist. No, the way forward is to recognise, as my hon. Friend said, that society is changing. It is a mystery why Conservative associations, which have always been dominated by women, have selected so few women. There was some feeling perhaps in the past of “Where I cannot go, why should I send somebody else?” There was perhaps a feeling of jealousy. All that is changing, so we do not need to impose our centralising tendencies on our local associations; we need to have confidence that they will themselves want to select more women and the best candidates. One of the ways forward is through the open primary system. That is highly democratic. It takes power back to the local people. It takes it away from the Whips Office—dare I say?—because people will be more reliant on what people are saying locally, so the open primary is the way.

I do not think that IPSA has helped at all. For instance, would a successful woman doctor working in the north of England want to give up a successful practice to come and live under our present expenses system, to be stuck in a rented one-bedroom flat, and not just for the occasional business trip, but for half her working life? It is difficult. The problem is not so much that we have created structures that discourage women, but that women themselves do not want to come forward. I think that IPSA could help with that.

Lastly, we must not think that we will encourage more women by making Parliament more anaemic, for instance by sitting from nine to five. The fundamental job of Parliament—it might be boring and take a long time—is to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise the Government. That means that we must sit here for long hours, because that is our job.

Under the present system, some of our greatest Prime Ministers have come from modest backgrounds, as have many leaders of the Conservative party, including Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, Michael Howard and John Major. They were all committed parliamentarians. Many of our best parliamentarians, such as Ann Widdecombe and Margaret Thatcher, were women, and we should have confidence that we can go on throwing into the mix some wonderful women parliamentarians.

16:39

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I will keep my comments brief, Mr Speaker, as you have asked us to. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing the debate and on the motion. I also congratulate all 14 Members who spoke and all those who intervened. I think that this is the first debate in which I agreed with almost every word said by all Members on both sides of the Chamber. However, I think that it would be complacent to get involved in mutual backslapping, saying how fantastic things are as a consequence of the Speaker’s Conference. Progress has been made, but there is still a huge amount to do.

The most senior woman member of the Government, the Home Secretary, when asked about this, said:

“The first responsibility for ensuring diversity of representation rests with political parties, and with political parties taking action to ensure we have a greater diversity of candidates”.—[Official Report, 17 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 1017.]

All three party leaders have signed up to the principles of making Parliament more diverse: justice, effectiveness and legitimacy. It is really important that responsibility should start and end with political parties.

It is important that we take a look at how the three political parties are doing when it comes to representation. Of the 55 Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, only seven are women—a Liberal Democrat Whip was just in the Chamber for a short period, but she has now gone—and none of them are black or Asian minority ethnic. For the European Parliament elections on 22 May, only a third of the party’s candidates are women. I think that is a problem.

The Labour party has made some progress, but a lot more is needed—I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, suggesting that we are perfect. I remember being inspired when I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) elected in 1987, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), Bernie Grant and Paul Boateng. Fourteen members, or 44%, of the shadow Cabinet are women, as are 55 of our 138 shadow Ministers, or 40%. Two members of the shadow Cabinet are BAME, as are five of our shadow Ministers, and 54% of our candidates in target seats are women, and 40% of them in London are BAME.

Had there been more people like me sitting around the Cabinet table when there was a discussion about whether to have a van with the words “Go home” on it driving around the most diverse parts of London, I genuinely believe that someone would have said, “Hold on a second. I remember the National Front in the 1970s and 1980s. They used the same phrase.” Others would have said, “I have neighbours and friends who remember the National Front in the 1970s and 1980s, and that is not a sensible thing to do.”

Had there been more disabled people sitting around the Cabinet table when cutting and cancelling impact assessments was being discussed, I think that someone would have said, “Hold on a second. If we stop having impact assessments, we will not be aware whether a consequence of a policy might be poorer and disabled people being left out.” Had there been more women around the Cabinet table when it came to talking about anonymity for victims of rape, they would have said, “Hold on a second. There are very good reasons why victims of rape are kept anonymous.”

The Prime Minister said, as you will remember, Mr Speaker, that he wants a third of his Front Benchers to be women by the end of this Parliament, so how are the Conservatives doing? In the 2010 general election, Labour secured its second-worst result in history. Notwithstanding that, the percentage of our women MPs went up from 28% to 31%, and the number of black and minority ethnic MPs more than doubled from 2.2% to 6.2%. The Tories did very well in the 2010 election—although perhaps not as well as they should have done—and increased their number of MPs by 97 in numerical terms. The percentage of women MPs did not go up by as much as male MPs. They still have half the number of women MPs that Labour have—48 out of their 306 MPs, or 15%—and still only 11 of their MPs are BAME. Although progress was made and credit should be given, it was not enough progress.

Let us look at how the Government have conducted themselves under this Prime Minister. Of the various Departments, four are run by women—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office, and the Department for International Development. Those Departments have a combined budget of £33.79 billion—9.2% of the total budgets that the Government spend. Of the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Office, the Scotland Office, the Wales Office, the Office of the Attorney-General, the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, and the Office of the Leader of the House of Lords, none has a woman in at all. Those Departments’ combined spending is £55.6 billion—almost double that of the four Departments that women run. There is still a huge problem in relation to whether this Government understand the importance of having women in positions of power and influence.

What about other appointments made by the Prime Minister? Of 114 Privy Counsellors appointed since 2010, 17 are women, with zero being BAME. Fourteen per cent. of the seats on influential Cabinet Committees are held by women, but how many of them are BAME? Zero. Of the 85 policy tsars appointed since 2010, 13 are women. How many are BAME? Zero. Of the 19 Select Committees chaired by a Conservative MP, how many are chaired by a woman? One. Who is she? The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and we know how that movie ended. How many—[Interruption.] I hear some chuntering from the Government Benches. I am happy for the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) to intervene if she wants to. No? Fine. Out of those 19 Conservative Chairs of Select Committees, I said that one is a woman. How many are BAME? Zero.

Lots of progress has been made and we can talk in platitudes about the importance of making further progress. All the Conservative Members who spoke made excellent speeches; I particularly enjoyed those by the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who I commend for his plug for Women2Win. However, although the Prime Minister signed the commitments to the three principles at the Speaker’s Conference and progress has been made in relation to the number of additional seats won by women, the evidence thus far on this Conservative-led coalition is that progress has not been made, not only for women in politics but for women voters. Research by the Library shows that those who have been affected disproportionately by this Government’s policies are women, the disabled and those who are BAME.

I am afraid that in the next general election it will once again be left to the Labour party to make further progress in this important area. However, we want competition. We want the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party to be doing far more, because the more they do, the more our game is raised, and the more our game is raised, the better it is for British society.

16:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing this important debate. She has been a tireless and passionate advocate of the Speaker’s Conference, and she is quite a role model in her own right. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have made excellent contributions in thoughtful speeches and interventions.

Our democratic institutions make the best decisions when they have a mix of people with different skills, backgrounds and experiences from different parts of the country. As things stand, Parliament, especially as seen on television, presents as a predominantly white, middle-aged, male institution, which is not good for anyone’s faith in democracy—a point that was made in very strong terms at the Speaker’s Conference.

The House is an institution designed by men and for men hundreds and hundreds of years ago, it seems, and it often shows. The hours are long and often we do not leave until well after 10 pm, and for those with families, as we have heard, finding a balance can be difficult. There have been recent improvements through the introduction of an in-house nursery and more family-friendly sitting hours. I thank the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who worked hard and effectively to bring about that very important change. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for your ongoing commitment to and determination on the issue of representation and the work you have done on so many fronts. Long may it continue.

Progress is welcome, but it has been very slow indeed and we cannot be complacent. We need women and diversity to be part of the system in order to change it. I am very proud to be a woman and from an ethnic minority background in this Government, who are committed to help instigate change.

The Government are committed to supporting parties that want to increase their talent pool and ensure that they better represent the electorate. In that respect, we have implemented the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, which enable political parties to use positive action in candidate selection, should they wish to do so. We have also extended the ability for parties to use women-only shortlists to 2030, and to reserve seats on electoral shortlists for those with particular under-represented characteristics. We have also secured commitments from the three main parties to provide greater transparency of candidate selection through the collection and publication of diversity data. I am very pleased that the main parties are acting on their agreement to publish the data ahead of the 2015 general election as an alternative to implementing section 106 of the Equality Act.

There has been real progress in getting more women into politics, and this is the most gender diverse Parliament ever. Currently 22.6% of MPs are women, up from 19.5% in 2010. Following the 2010 general election, there are now six Asian women MPs, whereas previously there were none. Five women attend Cabinet, with some 24 women in Government overall in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In the September 2012 reshuffle, 12 of the new intake from the 2010 general election were promoted, six of whom were men and six of whom were women.

Despite this progress, we know that we still have a long way to go to achieve gender quality. That is why I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), who chairs the all-party group on women in Parliament, has launched a very important inquiry into how to attract women into Parliament and public life and, just as importantly, how to retain them. I hope that everybody who cares about this issue will support the inquiry as much as they can.

In 2010, the number of ethnic minority MPs nearly doubled—it went up from 14 to 27—with 10 being women. That is Westminster’s biggest ever percentage increase and I want to ensure that that upward trend continues.

We also need to do as much as we can to attract people from different socio-economic backgrounds to enter politics—a point that was made very well indeed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). It is worth noting that Mr Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme, which is run through the Social Mobility Foundation, is specifically aimed at people from disadvantaged backgrounds. I am delighted that the Government have been able to support it. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who initiated the scheme with Mr Speaker. I am also pleased that it is being used as a model for a similar scheme in the Scottish Parliament.

In July 2012, we launched the access to elected office for disabled people strategy, which gives support to disabled people who want to get elected. As part of the strategy, the Government have delivered the access to elected office fund, which enables disabled candidates to meet the additional costs they face and thus compete with others on a level playing field. The fund has now been extended to cover the 2015 general election and local authority elections, as well as parish and town council elections, with an increased application limit of £40,000. That has been widely welcomed by disability charities up and down the country.

This has been a very well-managed, well-mannered and mature debate. It is a bit of a shame that the shadow Minister let the side down at the final hurdle in seeking to score fairly cheap, if I say it myself, political points on issues about which we all care. These are not Conservative, Labour or Liberal issues; they are issues for Parliament. We must not use them as party political footballs, but work together to get the situation right and continue to make improvements.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

rose—

[Mrs Grant]

I have little time left, so I will finish my remarks.

Today’s debate has reflected a wide range of opinions on how Parliament, Government and the parties can work to increase diversity of representation in Parliament and public life, while respecting parties’ cultures and philosophies. A strong democracy is inclusive. It is clear that such diversity is not something that is just nice to have, but is an absolute essential.

Many steps have been taken since 1918, when women first got the vote. Even then, the prospect of women standing at this Dispatch Box, let alone becoming Prime Minister, was absolutely inconceivable. We now have more women in the House than ever before. The Speaker’s Conference has thrown down a challenge to us all, whatever hat we wear—as a parliamentarian, a party activist or a Minister—and this Government are of course absolutely committed to playing their part fully. The Government support the motion.

16:56

[Dame Anne Begg]

With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, which has shown this Parliament at its best, with an ability to agree and to disagree, to be lively, funny and amusing, and most of all—surprisingly—to agree across the Chamber that the House needs to be more diverse.

We have shown that we already have diversity in the House. We have had a speaker from the LGBT community and several from BAME communities; a couple of us happen to be disabled; a few of us are women; and, indeed, some people have been willing to self-declare as working-class. Of course, we also heard from that very put-upon minority, the white middle-class man. All of life was here.

I was very struck by the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who said that we all have a belief in politics. The fundamental basis of this place is that we believe in it. We believe that we can change things and make the world a better place from this Chamber. We all believe that this is the place to be in order to make life better for our constituents. If this place is undermined, that will affect our ability to do that job and our very worthwhile work. We do not do it for individual glory, despite what many people outside Parliament think, but because we think it is right. That is why we are here, why we should come from different communities and why we must represent different views from across our country. Under your tutelage, Mr Speaker, I hope that that is what this House of Commons will become in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the fact that there are now more women hon. Members and hon. Members from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in the UK Parliament than at any time in history; notes that, in spite of progress, Parliament is not yet fully representative of the diversity of UK society; recognises that increased diversity of representation is a matter of justice and would enhance debate and decision-making and help to rebuild public faith in Parliament; is concerned that the progress made in 2010 may not be sustained unless concerted efforts are made to support individuals from under-represented communities to stand for election in 2015; and calls on the Government and political parties to fulfil commitments made in response to the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) in 2010, including commitments in respect of candidate selection and support for candidates.

[Julian Smith]

On a point of order. Is it in order that in the closing stages of a cross-party debate about a parliamentary report, the shadow Minister—

[Sadiq Khan]

Shadow Secretary of State.

[Julian Smith]

I apologise. The shadow Secretary of State sought to over-politicise the debate and was quite aggressive in debating issues that are important for the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order. I do not say this in any disobliging sense, but his attempted point of order has much in common with the vast majority of attempted points of order—namely, that it was an attempted point of order, but the attempt was unsuccessful. Nothing disorderly has taken place, but the hon. Gentleman with his usual eloquence and alacrity has registered his point, and it is on the record.

I call Tessa Munt to present a petition. Not here.

Post Office Museum and Post Office Railway

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

17:00

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I requested this debate to help secure the heritage of the British postal museum and archive. It was closed in the mid-1990s and, if the plans go well, a new museum will, at long last, open its doors and the public will once more have access to not just stamps, but the history of communication and the social history that will be on display.

When I first thought about the possibility of having a stamp museum just outside my constituency, I did not think that it would necessarily set the world alight. However, as has been explained to me, it is about communication and, particularly, how we communicated throughout the 20th century. The way in which we communicate with one another is, in the end, what makes us different from the animals.

I am sure that the House will be pleased to hear that I will discuss Royal Mail without delivering a tirade about the outrageous proposal to develop the Mount Pleasant site above ground. The Minister will know that Mount Pleasant is one of the largest development sites in London, yet, of the 650 homes that are proposed for the site, only 12% will be affordable housing. That is frankly scandalous, particularly given that the viability report shows that it could support more than 50% of proper affordable housing and still make a profit. However, I will not talk about that today.

I want to make it clear that there is a difference between the development overground and the development underground. The development underground is the railway and to the side of that is the new postal museum. There is a distinct difference. It is important to underline that difference because the new postal museum and archive and the underground railway will apply to the council for planning permission on 10 March and, on the same day, the council will not be asked to discuss the plans for Mount Pleasant above ground because the developers have decided to bypass local opposition and go straight to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. They hope that they will get a better hearing from him than they would get locally, where we are all against the development. We are not against the British postal museum and archive.

As the Minister will know, the museum and archive has strong historical links to the Royal Mail Group. It is an independent charity in its own right and is the caretaker of a remarkable history, some of which I will share with the House. Currently, the archive is based at Freeling House. Freeling was the secretary to the Post Office, which was the equivalent of a chief executive. Because of his expertise in international mail routes, particularly across the continent of Europe, he was an extremely effective spy during the Napoleonic wars. He was therefore not only the chief executive of the Post Office, but a spy from the 1780s until the 1820s. He collected all the accounts, mail coach maps and employee records and put them into an archive. He was therefore the founding father of the archive.

There are other, more immediately attractive items. There is a remarkable sheet of stamps that depict the ageing Edward VII. The stamp was known as the Tyrian plum and was used only once. On the night that the old King died, one of the stamps was sent to the new King. The used stamp that was sent to the new King is in the royal collection and the sheet of unused stamps is in the archive. That was the only time that the stamp was used to post a letter. George V, who was an avid philatelist, collected it.

Another remarkable sheet of stamps was designed in the 1970s. At that time, it took a long time to design a stamp, print it and make it available, so they had to be prepared in advance. Scotland was in the World cup finals in 1978, so stamps were produced so that they would be ready if Scotland won the cup. Those stamps are in the archive and will be available for the public to see, so long as the museum is established. The stamps depict the winning team holding aloft the World cup and celebrating victory, which, tragically, was never realised.

Another stamp documents Churchill’s plan during the second world war, when there was concern that France would fall. Churchill’s plan was to unite the Kingdoms of Britain and France so that they would stand together and France would not be able to capitulate to the Germans. A stamp was designed to celebrate the uniting of the two countries. The plan did not work, but it is evidence of attempts that were made during the second world war. Such things one learns from stamps.

The museum is not only about stamps that depict history; the postal archive holds hundreds of paintings, letters, telegrams and photographs documenting Britain’s social history. There are two telegrams from the owners of the Titanic, one from the evening of 14 April 1912 declaring that rumours of the Titanic’s distress were unfounded, and another from the following morning announcing the death of more than 1,500 people and saying that women and children had been saved. The museum owns 100,000 photographs taken by Stephen Tallents, the person who first coined the term “public relations” and was the first public relations manager of the Post Office. In the 1930s, he revolutionised how companies were to communicate with the public.

The style of many of the posters put up to promote the Post Office in the 1930s was copied by London Underground, and if we compare some of London Underground’s more famous posters with those produced by the Post Office immediately before, we can see where it got the idea. At long last, when the museum is finally opened in my constituency, those posters will be available to be seen. They include photographs of postmen in the 1930s delivering across the country, including to fields where women and children were working, and to washerwomen in Poplar. All sorts of different things were delivered. There are photographs of a postman delivering live fish, and another of a postman holding two dead game birds in both hands—it seems that pheasants could be delivered as long as they were not leaking at the time.

The oldest document in the collection dates from 1636 and is a letter from Charles I to the mayor of Hull. The mayor is told in fairly clear terms that the mail service is now a monopoly and that he is no longer allowed to use his own personal service. He is told that the monopoly is now under ownership of the king and that he must cease using the local mail. It is a remarkable and unique version of history.

The BPMA plans to spend £10 million on a new archive and museum, and £12 million on the little known rail mail—another gem. The rail mail runs under my constituency and many others across the heart of London. It was devised in 1911 and completed in 1927 and is an underground railway that served the main sorting offices from Whitechapel to Paddington. The idea was to link the major railway stations across London so that mail coming into Liverpool Street could be delivered straight from Paddington and out the other side. Therefore, if someone in east England wanted to write to west England, the post would go down to the underground railway line. We talk about producing new railways and the ideas behind them, but that was the first Crossrail devised many years ago. It was built at a time when the belief was that we would—of course—continue to invest in the Post Office because the amount of post would increase and people would always want to communicate with one another.

When the railway line was built across central London, knowing that people were likely to want to expand the line in future, spurs were built so that if it was necessary to have a new line going out to Oxford street, there was a spur already there. It could simply be blocked off at one end and the railway line not closed completely, and the line could be expanded. Things are so different now; now we build to a contract and only to that contract, and hope that we will build it in time and to budget. The project was built with vision, confidence, and with a positive attitude for the future of Royal Mail. So unlike our current times, unfortunately.

The original Royal Mail allowed mass communication across the UK and ran for 76 years. The public have never been allowed to see the railway, but hopefully when the railway museum is opened people will, at long last, be able to go down to see it. There is huge excitement not just in train circles, but for many people who are interested in the industrial heritage of Britain in the 20th century, and they will be able to ride on that railway underneath the streets of London.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a marvellous speech. Is she aware that one third of the world heritage sites in this country are industrial world heritage sites? Would she consider putting this forward as another one?

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend is always full of very good ideas. I shall make a note and attempt to propose it.

The historic tunnel has not been seen by the public. It was also used during the wars to house some of our most priceless treasures. There are photographs of Turner paintings in the underground railway during the first world war, where they were held safe from bombs. It was also a home for Air Raid Precautions during world war two.

In total, the BPMA will have raised £8.91 million, and secured a further £8.15 million from donations and loans from Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. The bulk of the remaining funding will come from an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which is currently in progress. The £4.6 million of HLF funding is a second round application. I have written in support of it to Dame Jenny Abramsky, the chair of the HLF. I would like to use this opportunity to ask the Minister and other Members to write to Dame Abramsky and offer their support to the bid. If successful, the grant from the HLF will make a significant contribution to the total project. At £4.6 million, it will make up 20% of the total figure. I am sure that the House will agree that it is vital the BPMA is successful in its application.

It is, however, with some regret that, of the £21.8 million already raised by the BPMA, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has donated only £70,000. That figure derives from the residue of the sales of shares in Royal Mail. I hope the Minister will agree with me that such an important historic and social archive as the BPMA deserves a little more than £70,000. It deserves more of the £2 billion sale of Royal Mail than the £70,000 it is being given.

One of the quirks of Royal Mail history is that it has always had two Postmasters General. I hope the Minister will be able to visit and see the history of the two Postmasters General from, I think, the late 17th century to the 19th century. The deal was always, to ensure that when franchises were given out there was an even split of political profit, that one Postmaster General was always a Whig and one was always a Tory. Such things go around: even then there was a coalition of Tories and Liberals who were selling off Royal Mail services.

Given that the Government have acted within the tradition of Royal Mail, I am sure that they will be as keen as I am to ensure that this history is properly documented and accessible. The archives have been closed to the public since the mid-1990s, when the old site at St Pauls was sold off to Merrill Lynch at a time when Royal Mail was in public ownership. Does the Minister not agree that perhaps some of the profit, made when the Royal Mail museum was first sold off to Merrill Lynch in the 1990s, could be ploughed into the new museum? Is it not right that the money from the sell-off, which has been held in trust ever since, is returned to the museum?

The BPMA has managed to raise £21 million towards this project, but it is still £500,000 short. Does the Minister agree that the Government could do more to ensure that the postal archive is once again accessible and that the never-before-seen rail mail is also open to the British public? It is asking for £500,000. I hope that the Minister will this evening be able to grant its request. It is vital that the museum is open to the public.

How far can one walk through London without seeing part of Royal Mail history, such as a pillar box? The museum is like a pillar box. Think of all the history pillar boxes have seen in central London. This museum is standing there showing us the social history that has evolved around it. If any of those 100-year-old pillar boxes could talk, they would be telling us the sorts of things we would be able to pick up at this museum. I hope the Minister will agree that it is vital that the museum opens and I hope that he will be able to show some support for it today.

17:14

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on securing this debate on the future of the postal museum and the Post Office railway. I commend her for such an entertaining and informative speech, which I think we all enjoyed.

The Government recognise that the British postal museum and archive is the leading resource for all aspects of British postal history in the United Kingdom. These records are designated as being of outstanding national importance. The BPMA was established by Royal Mail in 2004 as an independent charity to manage and preserve the Royal Mail archive and to be the custodian of the museum’s collection. As well as housing the world’s greatest collection of British postage stamps, the museum and archive hold written records of the GPO and the Post Office, staff records, telegrams—as we have heard—posters, photographs, uniforms, pillar boxes, an amazing collection of postal vehicles including a five-wheeled “pentacycle”, and a fascinating variety of other artefacts, including the signature stamp of Anthony Trollope, who worked for the Post Office for over 30 years, and sheets of the Penny Black, the postage stamp that is at the heart of the history of the universal service.

The BPMA effectively safeguards visual, written and physical records from 400 years of postal history. It acknowledged some time ago that in order to secure a sustainable future for that heritage, it would need to relocate and redevelop the museum and archive. The current premises at Freeling House have space and access limitations; they are also prone to intermittent flooding, so the staff have had to deal with additional curatorial issues. As the hon. Lady told us, there was previously a Post Office museum, but it closed in 1998. Since then, a large part of the collections has been held at a storage facility in Essex, or held by other museums around the country. It is clear that the BPMA needs a permanent and damp-free home, for its museum collections in particular but also to lay the foundations for a more sustainable future.

The plans that the BPMA has set in play to address the situation are beginning to pay off. These are exciting times. An existing building near the Mount Pleasant complex is to be the new home for the archive, and the surrounding land will be used to build a new exhibition space. The selected building, Calthorpe House, has been provided by Royal Mail, and planning permission has been granted for the development of a museum building on adjacent land. The BPMA is also proceeding with plans to bring back into service part of the historic mail rail underground system—which we have heard about—as an additional visitors’ attraction. That will enhance the visitors’ experience, and I am sure that it will attract many people to the hon. Lady’s constituency.

The cost of all the redevelopment—again, as we have heard—is just over £22 million, which is a significant sum. The BPMA has secured much of that funding from a number of sources. Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd remain firmly committed to the work of the BPMA and to the redevelopment project. Donald Brydon, the chairman of Royal Mail, has been a great advocate for the BPMA, and has been consistently in touch with me about it. Royal Mail has made available a 999-year lease on Calthorpe House—the new museum and archive premises—at a nominal rent, and further donations of £350,000 have been made in respect of preparation work for the new museum.

Both Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd continue to make payments to the BPMA as part of the ongoing arrangements. For example, in 2012 a £640,000 charitable donation was made for the running and maintenance of the museum. Fees of £400,000 were also paid for archive services provided by the BPMA in order to ensure that Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd would meet their obligations under the Public Records Act 1958, and, in doing so, would themselves ensure that records of social and historic importance were preserved and made publicly available after 20 years.

Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd have also contributed to the new project by providing soft loans and grants of just over £7.5 million, to be paid at various stages of the redevelopment. To secure the loans, the BPMA prepared a commercial business case which will enable it to be more self-funding in future—by, for example, charging for mail rail, and allowing its facilities to be hired for corporate events. The BPMA has also secured access to heritage lottery funding of over £4.25 million, and was awarded £250,000 as initial funding, with access to a further £4 million-plus. My Department arranged a contribution of £70,000 to the BPMA last year. That came about as a result of the terms of the retail share offer element of the initial public offering which we saw through successfully in October. Under the terms of the offer, any sums less than the offer price of one ordinary share were not to be refunded to the applicant, but the Secretary of State could give these amounts to charitable purposes.

[Emily Thornberry]

Was all the residue and the money that was to be given to charities given to this museum, or did some of it go elsewhere?

[Michael Fallon]

My understanding is that it was all given to this particular charitable purpose, but I will check whether I am right.

We considered what charitable donation would be most appropriate and we thought a donation to the BPMA was the most merited of the various possibilities canvassed. The BPMA is also raising significant funds from charities and foundations by selling surplus duplicate stamp collections and related material and using corporate donors to help to raise the funds needed. All proceeds from such duplicate stamp sales are ring-fenced for use by the BPMA. The BPMA also has effective plans in place—along the lines of its existing fundraising activities—to attract the outstanding funds needed for the project.

I hope that today’s debate has served to highlight the highly important work for which the BPMA is responsible as custodian of our postal heritage. That is deserving of wider recognition, and I think deserving of the highest praise given the history of the museum and some of the hiccups along the way. Through the hard work and determination of the BPMA’s administrators over the last few years, this truly worthy project is now within touching distance of coming to fruition, and to get this far is a magnificent achievement in its own right.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all who have already made contributions to the redevelopment project. Through their generosity a very important part of Britain’s history will be preserved for the benefit and enrichment of everyone—most importantly, of course, future generations. I would encourage all charitable trusts and foundations, corporate sponsors and individuals to give serious consideration to supporting the BPMA in whatever way they can.

I hope that any necessary additional funding can soon be secured to ensure that work can start on schedule for the planned opening in 2016. In the interim I hope that anybody listening to this debate, including those of us who have engaged in it, will be encouraged by the BPMA’s plans and will seriously consider paying a visit to the museum, as I intend to do, to find out more about a key period of our modern history—the communications revolution that started here in the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century and spread with remarkable speed around the globe.

The Government will continue to monitor the progress of the project with keen interest, and Parliament will, of course, be kept informed of the progress through Royal Mail’s annual reports on its heritage activities that are laid in Parliament, as the Government required under the Postal Services Act 2011.

Question put and agreed to.

17:23

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 27th February 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 27 February 2014

Health

Thursday 27th February 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Accident and Emergency Attendances

The following is an extract given by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), from Oral Question number 16 on 25 February 2014.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Ministers again deny that England’s A and E departments are in crisis. The Secretary of State did so in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) earlier. It just will not wash any more. In the past two weeks, 10,743 patients waited on trolleys for up to 12 hours because no hospital beds were available and 52 patients waited for even longer. Does the Minister really think that it is acceptable that patients are experiencing the worst fortnight in A and E this winter while she is complacently sitting on her hands?

[Jane Ellison]

There is no complacency on the Government Benches, and attendances are half what they were under Labour. Week after week we have heard those on the Opposition Front Bench come to the House to talk up a crisis in our NHS, but the NHS has responded incredibly well throughout the winter. I pay huge tribute to the staff of the NHS for what they have done in responding to this. The Government are taking long-term action to reduce pressure on A and E; even the College of Emergency Medicine rebuts the Opposition line that there is a crisis in A and E this winter.

[Official Report, 25 February 2014, Vol. 576, c. 157.]

Letter of correction from Jane Ellison:

An error has been identified in the response given on 25 February 2014.

The correct response should have been:

[Jane Ellison]

There is no complacency on the Government Benches, and waits to assessment are half what they were under Labour. Week after week we have heard those on the Opposition Front Bench come to the House to talk up a crisis in our NHS, but the NHS has responded incredibly well throughout the winter. I pay huge tribute to the staff of the NHS for what they have done in responding to this. The Government are taking long-term action to reduce pressure on A and E; even the College of Emergency Medicine rebuts the Opposition line that there is a crisis in A and E this winter.

Petition

Thursday 27th February 2014 Petitions

Thursday 27 February 2014

Understanding and Funding for People with Eating Disorders

Thursday 27th February 2014 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the latest figures show hospital admissions for eating disorders have risen by 16% from last year to 2,290; further that more than half of those admitted to hospital were children or teenagers; and further that eating disorders have the highest mortality rates of any mental illness, at around 20%.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to increase understanding and monetary resources available for those with eating disorders.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Tessa Munt.]

[P001322]

Westminster Hall

Thursday 27th February 2014 Westminster Hall

Thursday 27 February 2014

[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

Backbench business

Thursday 27th February 2014 Westminster Hall

NHS Patient Data

Thursday 27th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence to the Health Committee on 25 February, on Care.data database, HC 1105.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Jane Ellison.)

13:30

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for supporting me in applying for this debate, and those hon. Members who have found the time, on a day when attendance here in Parliament is not compulsory, to join me in supporting this important agenda, which is incredibly timely given the recent debate and coverage in the media about concerns over care.data and the wider issues that it raises. I thank the Select Committee on Health for its hearing earlier this week and its support for this debate.

It is no exaggeration to say that the use of patient data is one of the most important subjects being debated in this Parliament, because the use of such data is central to numerous important quiet revolutions. The first is discovering and preventing another Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, possibly the biggest institutional failure in public services in recent decades. It is also key to planning the health and care of an ageing society, the costs of which are one of the key drivers of the health budget element of the structural deficit that promises to hold this country in debt.

Data are key to evidence-based policy making and the modernisation of 21st-century NHS services to tackle the chronic gap in health productivity. They are key to tackling the growing medicines deficit, which is causing the NHS and the UK to fall ever lower in the league tables for access to new medicines. They are key to helping unlock the UK’s ability not just to tackle that but to turn it on its head by becoming a global hub of the new model of patient-centred drug discovery sweeping the globe. Finally, they are crucial to generating huge new revenues for the national health service and potentially massive savings in the drugs budget by making the UK the best place in the world to design the new generation of 21st-century targeted and personalised medicines, which are replacing the old one-size-fits-all model of drug design—the old big pharma blockbuster model—which is failing.

The Francis report highlighted a major crisis in the NHS and was a massive wake-up call for all of us. Let us remember that thousands of patients suffered unnecessarily as the result of a massive systemic failure of health care delivery that was deliberately and shockingly ignored by health professionals, who ignored whistleblowers. It was not identified by any management data at the time, because although we were recording it, we were not using it. The use of outcomes data to measure outcomes and performance is utterly core to the successful delivery of modern services across our society. The biggest crisis in this debate is not our over-exploitation of NHS data but our shameful failure to allow transparent performance management in the NHS and care sectors earlier.

As we have seen these last few weeks, issues involving the use of patient data can arouse a storm of controversy and highly charged emotional and partisan debate, including a hugely visceral set of conspiracy fears based on the idea of big government allowing their friends in big business to exploit our data for narrow commercial interests and the incompetence of Governments to manage data securely. This debate is fuelled by and, at worst, worsening a profound collapse of trust generally in Government and big business, which is becoming something of a defining zeitgeist of our times. Pro and anti campaigners have come out in force to proclaim the merits of their relative positions.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Although it was not directly about data, the last time this happened was during the scandalous media coverage of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine scares. It took 12 years or so to find out eventually that the arguments against the vaccine had been absolutely bogus from the beginning. I say to my hon. Friend, because I may not be able to make a speech, that some of the campaigning organisations, including SumOfUs and 38 Degrees, have stirred up trouble when they should have been backing responsible use of NHS data for the benefit of all of us.

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I will acknowledge later the veracity of some of the points raised, but he is right that some irresponsible fears have been raised, which do nothing but damage public health. The MMR debacle is a good example of why we need to use those data and why we need very high rates of opt-in so that they can be used in that way.

Unsurprisingly, due to that debacle, many now ask whether there is a future for this quiet revolution in the use of patient data to deliver the benefits outlined above. After all the controversy and public backlash, where can the hope of a data-led NHS go? Is public trust now so low that the Arab spring of health outcomes and transparency is over? I suggest that it is not, and that the Government and NHS England’s decision to delay the care.data initiative in order to give more time for a wider public discourse provides a platform for rebuilding public trust and confidence. I will make some specific suggestions for the Government to consider that I think would go a long way towards achieving that.

I will begin by sketching out the revolution that I believe is currently under way in 21st-century medicine and how data are central to driving it. I will then show how the ten-minute rule Bill that I have introduced on patient rights over patient data, and the Patients4Data campaign that I helped to found, some of whose members are here in the gallery, are articulating the benefits of patient data. I will then summarise and address the understandable concerns of many patient data opponents, which have been aired in the past few weeks. We must carry public trust and confidence; how can we put measures in place to combat those concerns? Finally, I will set out how I believe the scheme can be saved and how we can ensure that patient data can be used to deliver the benefits that we all want in a way that carries public trust.

Fundamentally, I suggest, this debate on data is a small but important test for our politics. Will we let some of the greatest advances in modern medicine and the chance of a truly 21st-century model of health care elude us and get lost in a muddled partisan debate that generates more heat than light, or let failures of health care delivery like those in Mid Staffordshire be compounded by failures of parliamentary and political process? Or will we rise above it to recognise the reasonable objections raised by opponents, address them with the studied calm that an issue of this importance demands and find a workable solution on a truly cross-party basis?

I hope that this debate will play a part in helping us take the latter course and show this House at its best, with politicians coming together to find answers in the interests of the British people, patients and the NHS, as well as the care professionals who rely on us to get it right. As they have a duty of care to the patients of this country, so we as elected representatives have a duty of care to the democratic process and to them as citizens. The transformational impact of data is too important to get lost in a debate dominated by petty factionalism and party rivalry. This serious issue demands serious answers, which this debate will help to provide.

I mentioned a quiet revolution in modern medicine. I suggest that slowly but surely, 21st-century health is changing from something done to us by government when government has thought that we needed it to something that modern citizens do for ourselves. It is a revolution ultimately driven by data in three profound ways—a quiet revolution in transparency of outcomes across the NHS; in research and how medicines are developed; and in empowerment of patients to take more responsibility for their own health care.

On transparency, we saw—most traumatically in the Francis report, although it is working across other areas of health care—that our constituents increasingly want to understand and see that their patient journey through the health system and, crucially, the care system is properly tracked. To share a personal example, I have power of attorney for my elderly mother, who was hospitalised last summer. When she came out of hospital, as thousands of our constituents do every day, she was suffering and in pain, and not getting the care that she needed. I wanted to be able to log on quickly to see what her diagnosis was, what she had been prescribed by way of pain relief and which of the mountain of expensive multicoloured pills she had been prescribed over the previous weeks and months she should have been taking that afternoon. I wanted to be able to ask the right questions of the system and the people in it when she was unable to do so for herself. Why could she not simply have given me her login password so that I, with power of attorney, could log on with her NHS number to her care record and see at a glance live information on her condition?

I have given a small example, but it is one that the younger generation in particular now expect in the delivery of public services. They want and expect data and easy online access to drive accountability. The genie is somewhat out of the bottle in terms of public interest in the power of data and online access to drive both transparency of outcomes and patient empowerment. The frightening truth is that we are currently in a dark age in some areas of our health service. The Government have sought to tackle that through the care.data initiative, and we should welcome that. The issue is how we tackle that in a way that commands public trust and confidence.

Despite all the technological advances of the last century, we are still unable to say how many people receive chemotherapy in the NHS each year, or how many prescriptions are issued. For all we know, there could be another Harold Shipman—God forbid—operating in a GP practice somewhere in Britain; or, more likely, a GP surgery or social care unit that is operating well below acceptable standards. We—the patients, taxpayers and citizens of this country—have a right to know, and to expect that MPs are asking the right questions and using our position in Government and privileged access to that vast data set to ensure that we are asking those questions and demanding the answers.

The horror stories from Mid Staffs were brought to light only by the power of outcomes data. Patients were dying unnecessarily. People were drinking water from flower vases. We now know that whistleblowers were ignored. It was only through the power of data that the scandal was uncovered. After all, data do not lie. If, as the Secretary of State said, sunlight is the best disinfectant, open data provide the light we need to stop the sort of abuses that were going on in places such as Mid Staffs and Winterbourne View.

The second and perhaps most groundbreaking application of data is in research. The truth is that the traditional model of medicines development on which we and the NHS have relied for almost 50 years, in which the pharmaceutical industry goes away for us and spends hundreds of millions—increasingly, billions—and comes back with a perfect drug claiming to suit everyone, is a model that neither we nor the NHS can afford any longer.

Having had a career in biomedical research, my experience is that over the past 10 to 15 years this country has quietly come to lead in the appliance of patient data sets in particular disease areas to drive and accelerate the development of modern medicines. That has had extraordinary benefits for NHS patients. I declare an interest in that I spent the last seven years of my career in biomedical science and research helping to create partnerships in the NHS between NHS clinician scientists, research charities, industry and university scientists, in order to try to accelerate the process by which modern medicines are discovered and developed.

The truth is that the more we learn about genetics, genomics, patients and disease, the more we know that someone else’s disease will probably be different from mine. Our susceptibility to it will be different, as will our response to different drugs. The revolution in research data offers an extraordinary opportunity for the NHS to be the place in the world where we develop and design 21st-century medicines targeted at the patients who need them, and generate extraordinary opportunities for NHS patients and clinicians. Instead of being a country that can no longer afford a spiralling drug bill and that, through inevitable rationing, becomes an ever less attractive place to develop and launch new drugs—accelerating our crisis in access to medicines—we could become the best territory in the world in which to do patient-centred drug design, and thus get the fastest access to the latest medicines. That would be a huge prize for our country.

I shall give an example that brings that opportunity to life. The last project that I worked on before coming to Parliament was at King’s college here in London, with Professor Simon Lovestone, the head of research at the college’s academic health science centre and the professor of psychiatry. The project was funded by the NHS National Institute for Health Research and looked at the catchment population of the South London and Maudsley NHS mental health trust—250,000 patients suffering from a range of mental health ailments. Members will be aware that there is no magic bullet drug in mental health; there is a huge cocktail of some very difficult drugs, with often hugely traumatic experiences and side effects for patients. It is an unsatisfactory area of modern health care in which we are still failing a large number of patients, despite the best efforts of those seeking to care for them.

The system that was put in place, funded by the NIHR, created an anonymised data set of the 250,000 patients, which allows researchers to look across that cohort at relationships between medicines and outcomes and between disease diagnosis and MRI scans. It shines a light on which drugs are working for which patients and starts to allow us to improve treatments, target the right drugs to the right patients, and begin to understand the complex interplay of genetic, lifestyle and pharmaceutical factors shaping disease, as well as giving possible opportunities for breakthroughs in diagnosis and treatment.

Interestingly, in the context of the anonymisation debate, crucial to the success of the NIHR-funded system is the ability to trace and analyse GPs’ notes in a long sequence of diagnoses for an individual patient, and to understand the interaction of a number of different factors in that patient’s life in predicting particular patterns of predisposition and response to drugs. In discussing anonymity, pseudo-anonymisation and total anonymisation, we must therefore be careful to ensure that we support a system that allows the right people to use the right data in the right way in order to drive health benefits.

We must also distinguish the use of data for research from the publication of data. We have discovered from the story this week in The Daily Telegraph about a secondary analysis of data by insurance companies that those data were originally published by a think-tank. We must therefore be careful to put in place an appropriate system so that, for core research within the NHS, the necessary freedoms to look at individual patient and non-anonymised data are protected, but we have a cascade of protections leading out so that published data are absolutely safeguarded against de-anonymisation.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend very warmly on securing such a timely and important debate. The protections that he is talking about are fundamental to a lot of people with strong views on this issue. By what mechanism does he envisage data sets becoming available? Who would be in charge of the protection? Do we make large data sets available? Would there be some sort of automated system to find breaks in the data? My question, essentially, is: what are the mechanisms to reassure people?

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. I will come in due course to some detailed ideas, but his question merits an “in principle” response. It was proposed in the initial version of care.data to use one or two advisory boards within NHS England. Their memberships are not particularly accountable or transparent, and nor are their criteria, although they are no doubt staffed by laudable and well-meaning public professionals. My hon. Friend’s question shines a light on the issue—what is the basis on which different sorts of data are being released, for what purpose and to whom?

Later on I will suggest that we ought to be putting such advisory bodies and the framework for data release on a statutory footing, with protections to help to secure public trust and confidence. We must also ensure that Parliament can look—annually, biannually, or whatever might be appropriate—at ensuring for itself, and for the benefit of our constituents, that the system is working as intended. My hon. Friend’s key point is that if we are to maintain public trust and confidence in a system based on opt-out—that is essential for the data set to be maintained at the level of scale and competence required for its function—we must earn the right to win over public support for opt-out. If we do not put in place the right protections, we will not earn that right, and we will risk large numbers of patients opting out. If that happens, we would have been better off putting in place protections that we would have preferred not to be necessary, but were, in order to secure public confidence.

To return to the system in the South London and Maudsley NHS mental health trust that was established by Simon Lovestone, it creates extraordinary opportunities for us here in London—and Britain more generally—to lead in the field of developing treatments for a whole range of mental health ailments, from Alzheimer’s to a range of other psychiatric conditions that cause so much pain and suffering. They also cause vast secondary costs to our health economy.

The third and most important reason this quiet revolution of NHS data is so important is in what I call empowerment. If health care is to move from being something that government do to us to something that we increasingly, as modern health care citizens, take responsibility for, we need to be empowered to engage in that health care economy. We need to be enabled to take more responsibility for our own health, our own health outcomes and our own predispositions to disease, and enabled to embrace an active role as health citizens able to use the system to drive the search for new treatments and cures; and we need to be given the tools to play a more active role in shaping our own health care destinies.

Twentieth-century medicine has essentially been passive: we wait until we get a condition and then we get what we are given. I believe 21st-century health care will be all about empowering a new generation of health care citizens to be proactive, taking an active interest and role in preventing disease, and helping to engage as patients in research and in treatment as patient support networks. The revolution in social media and the internet is already playing a profound role in allowing that to happen, making Britain the home of some extraordinary work that is being driven by our medical research charities in bringing patients together to support research, and also to support treatment, care and networks. It is connecting British patients, particularly in the field of rare diseases, with global networks and communities of patients.

We are seeing extraordinary things happening with patient groups raising money; philanthropic funding; companies being formed; and joint venture vehicles being formed by patient groups wanting to go and find the cure to their disease, often going back to interrogate old data from yesterday’s drugs, or failed drugs, to discover whether they might have worked for particular patient catchments and cohorts. That revolution is all to the good. It is something that we need to be encouraging and building into the system.

Ask any clinician and they will tell you the same thing. It is very striking that when patients first get a serious diagnosis, they quickly become overnight advocates of the power of the internet, online support and patient data, and the ability to plug into research, online information and patient networks. It can be very challenging, particularly when patients are hungry for information, to stumble into and across the wrong source—unhelpful sources of information—and GPs often find themselves having to correct their patients and put them back on track, but I do not think that that is a reason to say that the revolution is wrong or bad. It is a reason to make sure that we make it easier for patients to plug into the right sources of information.

When we talk to patients, the sources that they naturally trust are the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research—the NHS’s own research base—and the great charities whose philanthropic and disease commitment is unquestioned. We ought to be thinking about creating a framework for patients to access online to make it easier for our patients to plug into those trusted sources of information.

I spoke recently to Cancer Research UK, which is in the process of developing a patient portal. It will sit on the Cancer Research UK website as a portal to help cancer patients access clinical trials. It will recruit through the trials, through the Cancer Research UK charity. It also has a major technology transfer arm and is developing and supporting the development of new medicines—in many cases, medicines on which the industry simply does not see enough of a return to develop, because they are often targeting quite rare and specialist cancers. This is the revolution of medicines discovery that we need to be encouraging, and it is utterly based on patients engaging and supporting each other, and driving philanthropic and joint venture and mixed models of medicines, discovery and development. All that is down to data. Without those data, we are powerless to see neglect in our health care system; to help to save lives through research; or to gain further control of our own health care through this revolution of empowerment.

Fundamentally, we need to remember that we are talking about an evolutionary process. This quiet revolution did not start last month with the care.data leaflet job. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is not a sudden change sprung upon the public. We have been collecting health data in this country for more than 25 years. The UK and the NHS have been slowly leading the world in this field, but, for a range of reasons, we have not yet told the public the story. No wonder they are confused.

We started collecting basic health data 25 years ago. Most recently, out-patient data were added in 2003. A and E data were added in 2008. Crucially, the previous Government did not feel it was necessary to give anybody the chance to opt out. That is a decision that was taken, I am sure, in good faith at the time. I think it is a sign of how public attitudes are changing that the Government announcing they are giving people the right to opt out has triggered a massive backlash and public debate about on what basis there is any assumption that there is an automatic opt-in. It is a sign of how public attitudes are changing and that public trust in Government to always act in the best interests of its citizens is lower than it was.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

We must pay tribute to the media in helping us on all this. They are not always helpful. When Dr Foster information on hospital experiences is aggregated and published, everyone is pleased because they can see what is good, what is better and what should be stopped, but when it starts spreading to GPs, people suddenly start thinking it is all a frightful shock. It took the BBC, I fear to say, six days to wake up to the benefits and the common currency of the use of anonymised medical data for the benefit of us all.

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend again makes a very important point. Such debates are difficult. Whenever science and complex science are being debated, there is a danger that the easy, controversial and headline-grabbing arguments will dominate. I will not throw stones from Parliament and bemoan the lack of qualified scientists in the media. The truth is that we have a lack of well-informed science dialogue in our public discourse. There are excellent journalists in the debate. They do us a favour by understanding and promoting sensible and high-quality public debate, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have seen—he has mentioned MMR—cases in which well-intended public policy has been distorted by a badly handled media debate. That is true across different parts of the biosciences.

In agriculture, we have seen similar debates around GM. The proper debate about the benefits is not had because the level of public discourse does not allow us even to acknowledge what they are—we stay at an emotional level. Somehow, Parliament needs to find the ability to have those conversations. We are extraordinarily well equipped in this country compared with Europe. We are the only country that has a chief scientific officer in every Department, and that has a cabinet of chief scientists that meet weekly to advise the Government as a whole as well as their individual Ministers. Only three other nations in Europe have a system of chief scientific officers. Britain has an opportunity to lead as we grapple with a lot of higher science and technology in the 21st century.

The HSCIC in its new form will allow better use of information to join up care, but it comes as part of an evolution of health care data, not a revolution launched with care.data this year. It is no good having a £3.8 billion integration fund for better provision of services unless we have the right information, and unless we can join up intelligence to understand what really good care looks like. The truth is that this is part of a much bigger picture, with medicine and health care being transformed by an explosion of new technologies around the world. I contend we are living through a biomedical revolution every bit as profound as the agricultural and industrial revolutions that came before. Extraordinary new diagnostics, devices and drugs are being developed that will transform health care.

I want to share one example, which I recently came across in hosting the “Silicon Valley comes to the UK” med-tech event in Cambridge before Christmas. Interestingly, I met a Brit based in California who, after a successful first career in Hollywood special effects, decided that he wanted to put something back and do something rather more meaningful. As a child, he was obsessed—that was his word—by the “Star Wars” movies. He ended up developing a helmet that reads the neurological signals in the brain and, using algorithms and software, converts those into basic speech.

Having developed the first prototype, he trialled it on a cerebral palsy patient, a young man with an acute palsy who was unable to communicate. His mother had, like mothers do when children are diagnosed or suffer in that way, spent 21 years caring for her son. When they put the helmet on, to establish some communication protocols, he said to the mother, “I am now going to ask a series of simple questions that you will know the answer to and I want to establish whether your son is hearing and answering me correctly.” He proceeded to ask yes/no questions, including, “Do you like coffee?” and “Do you like tea?” The answers, translated by the algorithm, came up on the screen, “Yes” and “No”. He asked the boy’s mother, “Are these answers correct?” She said, “They are 100% correct.” He then asked, after a long pause, “Do you love your mother?” What came up on the screen was, “Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.” After 21 years of not having any communication from her son with cerebral palsy, for the first time she heard that her son loved her. That was achieved by the most extraordinary combination of algorithmic, diagnostic and Hollywood-derived technologies.

In health care, we are seeing an extraordinary convergence of technologies across different fields, which are genuinely transforming what will be possible in the 21st century. Data and information sit right at the heart of it. We have a duty to try to tell the public what could be possible if we allowed this revolution to be unlocked.

The UK is pioneering a new model of patient-centred biomedical research. Across the world, the life science industry is radically reconstituting itself around what everybody is coming to recognise as the most important asset of all in modern biomedicine: the ability to work with clinicians and their patients, with biopsies, and with patient records and data, to design a new generation of targeted and personalised medicines, diagnostics and devices. That model of targeted medicine unlocks the biggest prize of all: a new model of reimbursement, where, instead of our officials sitting in smoke-filled rooms every five years to negotiate prices for one-size-fits-all blockbuster drugs with the pharmaceutical industry, which neither we nor they, increasingly, can afford, we get to be the country getting drugs at reduced prices, reflecting the value we have delivered through our NHS infrastructure. That is why the Prime Minister’s leadership in grasping this opportunity, through the life science strategy, matters so much, building on the legacy—I should pay tribute to it—of the previous Government. Long-term thinking and cross-party unity of purpose is essential if we are going to unlock that value for the UK.

Of particular note are the launch in 2011 of the life science strategy, the catalyst fund, the patent box, the NHS open data initiatives, the “Innovation, Health And Wealth” reforms, and now the £100 million Genomics England project, in which the UK is making a bold leap into leading the world in genomics medicine, and for the first time sequencing the genome of 100,000 NHS patients and combining that at scale with its phenotypic hospital outcome data. With that, we will have not just partial bits of genetic information, but the entire genome. That will allow us to be the first place in the world that starts to identify certain things, saying, for example, “Interestingly, 98% of patients who don’t respond to that drug have this tiny genetic variation that we never spotted before.” That holds the promise of opening up a whole new world of medical research based here in the UK.

Ultimately, linking clinical and genomic data and using the power of modern computing provides the opportunity to turn the NHS from a major driver of our structural deficit into a major driver of growth in life sciences and a catalyst for public service innovation, reform, and patient and citizen empowerment. This agenda really matters.

The most inspiring examples of this tectonic shift in health care are, of course, the stories of the individuals whose lives have been saved by this data revolution. They include a man called Graham Hampson Silk, whose life was saved by the revolution in research-based medicine. Ten years ago, he was given three years to live. Yes, Members heard me correctly: Graham was supposed to die seven years ago. His life has been saved by the team of clinicians and NHS staff at Birmingham Royal infirmary and the Institute of Translational Medicine, led by the inspiring Professor Charlie Craddock. He found a drug in development in the USA and he personally led a fund-raising effort on behalf of his patient, highlighting again the way in which philanthropy and charitable work, embedded in our NHS as part of a mixed economy working with industry, is increasingly vital to the development of new medicines. Charlie raised the money through local fundraising to fund a trial for Graham and is now pioneering personalised cancer treatment here in the NHS, with NHS patients and their data, so that every patient in that unit becomes a research patient, helping prevent the next generation from suffering unnecessarily.

It was because Graham’s story and many thousands like it that I agreed to co-found with him the Patients4Data campaign this year, to highlight the life-saving effects of patient data. Patients4Data exists to make the case for how the medical revolution can and will transform, and is transforming, our lives. Our contention is that, if we do not embrace this data revolution, there is a clear and present risk of the UK—far from leading in this world of personalised medicine and winning in the global race for investment; and far from the NHS pioneering new models of health care, productivity and patient empowerment—becoming a backwater, talking the talk but not walking the walk.

Specifically on data, in a few years’ time it will be unimaginable to think of health records and patient monitoring as it is today, with paper records, cardboard boxes, partial digitisation, fragmentation across hospitals and community care a black hole. How many patients—our constituents—realise that what data integration there is in our health service currently depends on the humble treasury tag, that little green piece of string with two bits of metal at either end that holds together different cards and pieces of paper, particularly in our hospital system? On those treasury tags rely our 21st century system of medicine. It simply is not good enough.

That will be as unimaginable in health care as it was in the world of banking before electronic and telephone banking empowered millions of banking consumers to take more responsibility for their finances. I am old enough to remember when the first online bank was launched. I remember being worried that I could not really trust them with my money; worrying that the number on the screen might not actually resemble the amount of money in my bank account; and worrying that my money would leak and be lost, along with my financial data. I need not have worried, because that revolution in online banking has transformed banking and personal finance and has driven an extraordinary revolution in the UK in personal financial services. It has driven huge benefits for customers and citizens, with huge savings and a huge new market in online financial services. It is now taken for granted. The same revolution is happening and will happen in health care.

The Patients4Data movement and the Patient Data Bill, in respect of patient rights, which we have sponsored, have already secured extraordinary support from a wide range of key opinion leaders in this field: those who have seen what is coming and want the UK to be at the forefront, leading the charge. Those opinion leaders include more than 75 medical research charities, leading professor clinicians on the front line of UK research medicine, the NHS national director for patients and information and the Ethical Medicines Industry Group, which is not big pharma but small, emerging companies that are pioneering the new treatments and diagnostics that are all too often locked out by our current system of NHS innovation rationing.

Patient data are part of a wider story that will transform how we think about health and save hundreds of thousands of lives along the way. As with any revolution, there are new concerns, which I will now address. As the past few weeks have shown, many people have legitimate worries about the use and integration of GP and hospital data. Who has access to those data? Might your drink problem, sexually transmitted disease or confidential discussions with your GP be revealed? I am not talking about you, Mr Bayley, but about a hypothetical constituent. Will there be a free-for-all for insurance companies or others that want to use the data for malign rather than benign purposes? Major objections have been raised by a number of organisations. medConfidential has raised problems with the opt-out, and public ignorance of the scheme, the leaflet campaign and the communications. On the opt-out, medConfidential says:

“Where patients have objected to the flow of their personal confidential data from the general practice record, the HSCIC will receive clinical data without any identifiers attached (i.e. anonymised data)…This is not what any reasonable person would understand by opt out—if you opt out, no information from your medical record should leave your GP practice.”

A number of other concerns have been raised that merit attention.

Big Brother Watch has set out a number of concerns on the levels of public information, data extraction, the governance framework and sanctions, which merit consideration. On public information, Big Brother Watch flags the failure to ensure that the public are properly informed before any data are uploaded. It also highlights the conflation of various issues on the uses of data within care.data, from drug research to commissioning, monitoring of performance and treatment success. On data extraction, Big Brother Watch flags the lack of clarity on which data would be extracted for those who do or do not opt out, and the framework for the governance of that extraction. There are concerns about the ability of NHS England to establish a proper governance framework that commands public confidence. Big Brother Watch also raises the issue of appropriate sanctions for data protection infringements. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners have raised a number of concerns about communications.

I do not believe that those concerns equally merit Government attention, but some of them definitely do. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how those issues will be addressed in the next six months. The major complaints are these: why cannot we have an easier opt-out? Everyone who understands the issue wants to see very low opt-out rates, but the price we pay for ensuring low opt-out rates is introducing a series of protections that cement public support for being opted in, as it were, unless they actively opt out.

There is a major concern about the governance, the lack of a code of practice, the lack of clarity on the basis on which the advisory councils work, the criteria that the advisory councils are using and what will constitute inappropriate release or use of data. There is also concern on the statutory basis of the advisory councils. Given how strongly we now know the public feel about that, should we not be thinking about ensuring that we put those advisory councils on a proper footing, so that they are accountable in some way to the people whom they are there to serve through Parliament?

Questions have been raised about the possibility of releasing not the raw data but a cleaned summary format, which is not straightforward. As I have highlighted, there are some areas in which the raw data are essential for the purposes of research but would not be appropriate for any wider publication. Some have asked whether we could have more transparency on the different fields of data. The truth is that the summary care data contain a patient’s name, postcode, blood group and date of birth—the basic data—down through their detailed diagnosis and treatment history. Different levels of sensitivity and confidentiality are inherent in that cascade before we even consider genomic data. A number of people have raised interesting issues on whether we should have different levels of consent and different stages of release for those different fields.

A number of people have asked whether we could have more transparency on the data being used, by whom and for what purpose. There are questions about the sanctions for inappropriate release and use of data. A number of people have pointed out that the current fines represent small change to big industry, and we need to ensure that we have appropriate sanctions that are an effective deterrent. What deters big industry will probably need to be different from what deters academics or a medical research charity of limited means from making a mistake.

There are interesting questions on appropriate parliamentary governance and oversight and on how we in Parliament, with a duty of care to our constituents, will be able to monitor the system. Even those who support my Bill and campaign have raised concerns that they want me to raise today. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has flagged reservations about the ability for people not to share their data if they wish. He particularly flagged the danger of patient-doctor confidentiality being breached and undermined by the release of data and the risk that patients would no longer want to talk to their doctor for fear that that confidentiality may be compromised. Other Members have raised questions about the scrutiny of the process, public awareness and the ability to unwind the process so that the Government can retrieve the situation if it is shown that data security cannot be assured. The Select Committee on Health has raised concerns, too.

Unless those issues are directly addressed, there is a huge danger that we will not win public trust and that we will lose the benefits of patient data altogether. To avoid that, we need to show how the revolution benefits us as patients and is designed in the interests of patients above all else. We need an opt-out system, but we have to earn public trust to allow it; we cannot just take that trust for granted.

We need to put the system within a framework of patient rights. Patients should have a framework and an architecture to access the data for themselves. We should encourage patients to take responsibility for their outcomes, their health and their data. If we do that, we will find much more public support for this important initiative. First, we should be clear about some of the basic facts relating to some of the debate in the past few months. For example, despite newspaper reports of the old story of data being released to an insurance company, which happened years ago, under the Government’s proposals it will be illegal to make data available for any type of marketing or the administration of any type of insurance.

We need to make it very clear that the experience of other European nations shows the importance of having an opt-out system. In Austria, which has an opt-out system, the consent rate is 99.98%. In Germany, which has a similar culture, economy and demographic situation to Austria’s but has an opt-in system, the consent rate is currently running at 12%. That has profound consequences for Germany’s public health planning and ability to unlock all the benefits that I described earlier.

To make the scheme worth while, the evidence shows that opting out is the only viable system. Low opt-in rates render the data patchy and partial, and they would hugely undermine the ability to spot the next Harold Shipman or Mid Staffs. Do we really want our constituents to be operating in a health system excluded from comprehensive outcome transparency? I do not want my constituents to be subject to that, but many of the objections listed above are valid. To address those problems, we need to set out clear measures to regain public trust in the power of patient data to save lives.

We must put the patient first and highlight the security of their data, because the data are theirs. The current mess is not sustainable, and we need a way to rebuild public confidence. How do we do that? I will conclude by saying that there is a clear way to address that question. I want to suggest five simple things that we could do to turn the current uncertainty into a genuine success, taking patients with us and addressing the concerns expressed. Some are contained in my Bill; others will require additional legislation.

First, we should establish a new charter of patient rights, as set out in my Bill, with the principles that the data are patients’ data and that there is a duty of care from NHS England, the Government and social care providers to patients. I well appreciate that it is difficult and something of a cul-de-sac to enshrine a legal definition of ownership in legislation, but a series of rights, responsibilities and obligations flow from the principle of it being patient data, and we should enshrine that in statute.

The charter of patient rights would enshrine what rights patients have and put the conversation on data back to where it should be. It should not be about which mandarin in Whitehall has access to patient data, but how patients can access their data and use them to discover and drive a new world of health care. My Bill sets out measures to make the data available, using the NHS number as a unique identifier, abolishing charges and letting patients access their data quickly.

Secondly, we need to enshrine a new duty of care on NHS and social care providers to collect data properly, using the NHS number to ensure that we foster a culture of open data and transparency across the health system. My Bill sets out why that should be a contractual obligation, created through a new clause in the contracts of GPs and clinicians. There should also be a new duty of responsibility on NHS and care institutions to ensure that they are properly collecting and recording data in a way that patients and GPs can access through an integrated pathway record.

Thirdly, we must put the data release advisory bodies on a proper statutory footing so that the public can have confidence that those bodies have proper oversight and governance arrangements. We must set out more clearly the different protections for different fields of data. There is a big difference between the use of summary care data and the use of genetic or detailed diagnosis data, and we need to acknowledge and consider different levels of consent.

Technology is changing what is possible. Sophisticated automated online consent systems are being developed—by great British software companies, as it happens. Those systems could help provide patients with that subtlety of consent framework. That concern is inherent in some of the concerns expressed in the past few weeks. Others have asked whether the Secretary of State should be required appropriately to sign off on different levels of data, but equally one does not want him to spend too much of his time signing off on individual data release. We need a framework that the public can have real trust in.

Fourthly, we need to think about having some sort of annual parliamentary reporting on the use of the data and a review of the outcomes and insights that the data are generating.

Finally, we need a tougher statutory framework, with real criminal sanctions for data breaches. That would reassure the public. Campaigners are right to suggest that fines are of little real deterrence to some. To give the public ultimate reassurance about the safety of their data, we must look again at the punishments that can be handed out for data breaches. There is simply no way we can ever win the argument on protecting the public’s data unless there are clear penalties.

The six-month delay in the roll-out of care.data is a valuable opportunity to address a number of widespread concerns. Ultimately, we must assure the public that their data will be used only to save lives and improve our collective health. Rather than focus on who has access to data, we should focus on how the data are used, and we can do that through a combination of those five new steps.

Most of all, I call for the Minister to take this opportunity to set up a proper formal working party of interested parties to address these issues, to show how fears can be addressed and to report back on a workable solution that could command the confidence of those concerned. We need to do that now. If we enact some of the described measures, and possibly others, and set up such a working group, we can use that six-month delay to get into a position where, when the care.data is relaunched in October, we have not just dealt with some of the concerns, but built a profound sense of public, patient and GP support for the process and the benefits that will flow from the use of these data. While there are always risks to any endeavour, the debate does not, as it has in the past few weeks, have to be characterised by a stale and overly polarised insistence on security on the one hand and data use on the other.

We have to explore the issues, break them down and tackle them. There is no security for the patient unable to live another 20 years because the data system is incomplete. In short, this is a make or break moment for the NHS and for public health in the UK. Will we embrace the new world of 21st-century health care, or do we want to let those advances be lost in the muddle of fear and reassurances that the public do not trust? We need to take robust action now to deal with the criticisms at hand. By doing so, we can make use of the truly world-leading reservoirs of data that the NHS has, for the benefit of us all.

While the economic argument is compelling, there is much more to the issue than projections about structural deficits and the cost of ageing. It is about one simple question: who wants to be better for longer? With the right safeguards in place, I know that there is only one real answer to that question, which is that we all want to be better for longer and we want to live in a society that is using every means at its disposal through the uniquely valuable institution of the NHS to make that moral, social, political and economic crusade a reality.

In conclusion, this debate and process can be a moment—not just here today at 2.26 pm, but this year—for our politics to demonstrate itself at its best. It can be a coming together of interests, with Parliament and politicians listening to the debate, taking the best arguments and working together in a non-partisan way to deliver a long-term benefit for the nation. The Francis report demonstrated the tragedies of the past and the dangers of an overly polarised debate. The future can be different. It is up to all of us in the House to try and make it so.

14:27

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your distinguished chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I must compliment the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). I have always regarded him as a talented man, but when a man can speak, take a telephone call, say who has rung him and switch the phone off without breaking a sentence, that is real ability.

I should almost apologise for daring to speak after the hon. Gentleman. I am at pains to say that I am not putting the opposite view to his. I had a debate last week. I only had half an hour to share with the Minister, but I gave up five of my valuable minutes to allow the hon. Gentleman to speak.

I do not see the debate as having two opposite sides; I see it as two different responsibilities or objectives that should be rolled into one objective. The hon. Gentleman spoke today for more than three quarters of an hour, and all but five minutes were on the medical side.

I said this last week—I will say it again—but I do not challenge the medical benefits of the exercise. I concede that medical improvements will flow from it. Those benefits are accepted and encouraged, but the other side is personal privacy in the important field of individuals’ medical records. There were indications, but I am not sure that the common ground was in the five points he made. We must search for common ground, but I will show the hon. Gentleman and the House why it is difficult to find.

This is not a dialogue; NHS England and the body with the long set of initials that was set up are not listening. They do not intend to listen or allow the public a real choice in the matter—that is the problem. If those bodies did as the hon. Gentleman said and saw the matter as, “If we are going to do this, we must gain the trust of the public”, we would all be in a better position. However, I do not see that as their objective, which has always been to get through the formal parliamentary Committee and medical-world structure. The less we know, the less interference from us and the fewer decisions we are allowed to take, the better, because the world will be better. Well, the world will be better medically, but the dangers that we are spelling out, in terms of putting every person’s full medical records on a database, worry us.

The dangers worry us in two ways. The first is the bringing together of the databases into one huge database, where all the information about an individual patient is stored. That is an important technological computer problem—a difficult problem that has to be argued out. The second worry, which I think is the greater, is also difficult. The exercise so far would not lead an objective member of the public to trust the authorities. The worry is about the flow of information out of that database to people outside the national health service or social care.

I have in my hand the document that has caused the fuss. It was sent out as junk mail, delivered on a Monday morning with all the other junk mail; the post office has a standard way of delivering it. A person gets their pile and looks for an individual letter—no. They know it is Monday, so the pile goes into the bin. That was how the document was delivered. Some 65% of the people who were polled, “Did you read it? Did you receive it?” said no.

Mr Bayley, you are a long-established politician. You know the number of times we deliver manifestos and leaflets to houses in an election. When we then go round, people say to us, “We never hear or get anything from you.” The public’s memory of what goes through the door is pretty short, but when things come in with junk mail, that is understandable.

The real objection, however, is inside the document, and we have heard about it today. The front page is the front page. The inside pages contain the lot, including “Introduction”; “What are the benefits of sharing my information?”; “Information will also help us to:”; and “What will we do with the information?”. It is all favourable. It is all on the medical side. That is not disputed, if we get the data together and look at complaints and how they are handled. I am a lad who is into computers and databases in politics. Databases transform information in ways one could never do with pen and paper. That is conceded and encouraged, but what about the other side—the disbenefits?

I challenge anyone to find from this piece of paper the down sides or things that we have to worry about that the bodies would like to discuss with us. They are not there. The document has two pages saying that the system is great and that it will do wonderful things, and then it has a section called, “What choice do I have?” Anyone getting a piece of paper like that would read two pages, be switched off before that, and say, “When we have to opt in, why would I want to opt out? This is wonderful.” Having listened to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, it is wonderful, so why would anyone want to opt out?

Let me discuss some matters of trust, because that is what the issue is all about. I have been in the House for 20 years, and I do not trust Governments. I would not tell people to trust Governments, whether Labour, Liberal or Conservative. I would say to people, “Put your trust in God if you wish, but don’t trust Governments”, because the state and Governments have a life and interest of their own. The document is an example of where something has been decided that might ruin the life of anyone sitting in the Chamber, especially those sitting on our Benches. We all know, as politicians, what happened to data that were secure beyond any reason—our expenses. How secure was that database? What damage it did! It killed people and imprisoned people, and it brought us down to below journalists, estate agents and perhaps lawyers in the esteem of the public. That was a “secure” database.

Is there such a thing as a secure database? That is one of the arguments, but I am still talking about trusting the Government. Do not trust the Government. Let me take the five things the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk said about what we should do. Four of them are about the Government and public bodies.

I serve on the Treasury Committee. We have gone through the banking world. Theoretically, everyone who matters to the financial world reports to the Treasury Committee. They appear for an hour—two, if pushed—before the Committee once a year, and they have been accountable to Parliament. I remember the lad who ran the Financial Services Authority coming before us. We were discussing, I think, the withdrawal of cheques. I said to him—I was in the Chair, I think—that the public were outraged by the proposal, especially the elderly. I said, “The Committee is outraged by it. We would like you to go away and withdraw the threat to cheques. Will you do that?” “No”, he said. “I am the regulator. I do not answer to Parliament. I have statutory powers. You will have to convince me.” Those were his exact words.

Reporting to Parliament is a form of pompousness on our part. What on earth do they report to Parliament about? How do they do that? When do we see them? When do we question them?

We can look at the Annunciator monitors in the Chamber. I commend the ability of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk to speak for nearly an hour; his speech on the subject was important enough. However, if you, Mr Bayley, were speaking in the debate that was on the Floor of the House while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, you would be talking about an important subject—the treatment of welfare beneficiaries—and you would have had six minutes. Six minutes—that is accountability to Parliament. That is the ability of the majority of parliamentarians to raise an issue. This debate is a rare event.

The hon. Gentleman talked about duty of care and a bill of rights for patients. Well, we have a duty of care in the health service. It was good, was it not? We have had it since ’48. But what happened at Mid Staffordshire? The duty of care was there. A document such as the one I was talking about matters little; the issue is about how the service is run and what happens on the ground in reality. All those patients were protected by the duty of care. All the people who died had that duty of care. It was supposed to be wonderful and supposed to protect them—but we would want a bit better protection now.

“We will make the data release body a statutory body” sounds fine, but who appoints to that statutory body? The Government appoint, one way or another. Who appoints to the committee or body that released the leaflet I was talking about? The Government. “Yes Minister” has not disappeared from our memories, so would we expect someone from York who works on the railways, for example, to be on that body or on any body appointed by this building? No. Would we expect to see a permanent secretary or an ex-permanent secretary on this great committee? “Yes Minister” would say we would.

Public sector pensions are not what they were, and we cannot have a permanent secretary retiring without having a side job given to him—and he will behave himself, or he will never get another one. Surprise, surprise, on the committee I am talking about, there are two: one from the Ministry of Defence and the other, the interim chief executive who is just leaving, from the Department of Health. Trust Government! An inquiry, a review, a statutory body or a quango—what is the first criterion for people being appointed? They behave themselves—that they are a safe pair of hands. That is the reality.

The only one of the five points made by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk with which I totally agree is the last one, and I would push it a bit further. Misbehaviour on data of such sensitivity should not involve a fine. When the pharmaceutical or insurance industries are involved, or even the media, the penalty should be jail. The information in the file of people with a sensitive medical history could lose them their career, job, marriage, relationship or even life. That is what is in those files. That is why when we go and unburden ourselves to the doctor, we should be secure in the knowledge that what is said in the doctor’s surgery stays in the doctor’s surgery. I am not opposing records coming out, but what about the basis on which people outside this building or the national health service will have access to and be able to identify those records? Trust—we are going to trust them.

What about the prevarication over opting out? How do we opt out? I have found out about this issue in greater detail over the past two months, but how do I opt out? I have not opted out yet, because there is more than one form to fill in when doing so. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State was asked whether opting out could be done online or by telephone. Apparently, we can do it on the telephone if we are able to get through to the doctors and get a person answering, rather than an answering machine, and we can go online if the doctor is online.

Yesterday, I met a nice gentleman sent from the organisation involved—it was a pleasure, and interesting, to meet him. I asked him about opting out. He said, “Opting out is a matter for the GP.” I had asked why there was not a full-page advert in the paper explaining the arguments in favour and the worries, saying to people, “Make a balance. It is your decision. It will affect you” and including some opt-out forms. “We cannot do that”, he answered. “The GP is the holder of the data, so GPs should do it.”

What is the situation on opt-out? It is the biggest argument and the biggest concern. If we listen carefully to the reasons for concern, the medical side do not want us to opt out. The more people who find out what could happen to their records, the more who will opt out. If the authorities were straightforward, such is the way of things that the number of people who opted out would be a small proportion of the population. Rather than trust to that, they have taken the decision to minimise opt-out in a most dreadful way.

We are told to phone and make an appointment with our doctor to discuss opting out, but we have little chance of doing that even if we have lung cancer. We do not have a chance. With a medical complaint, when we try to see our doctor, the surgery says, “Ah, well, we might be able to see you next week. Can you take a day off work?” What person will take a day off work to discuss opting out? That is absolutely nonsensical and not of the real world. They want us to say, “Forget about the opting out.”

Furthermore, before leaving that subject, if people opt out, they should not think that their details will not be in the database. They will be going into the database. The point of opting out is that any information going from the database to someone else, will have the personal information taken out—date of birth, postcode, gender and all sorts of things that can identify someone. We might opt out, but our records are still in the database.

Why should we trust the authorities? I am not as articulate as the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk, but I do not have to persuade people. As Nye Bevan said,

“Why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book?”

All the patient records of everyone in the Chamber who has had hospital treatment in the past 10 years were sold to a firm of actuaries, who passed the information on to insurance companies. As a result, the insurance companies have 47 million records.

Of course we can trust Government—Government are great! We can trust the word of an individual who stands up to say, “The security is great.” Yes, we can, but that same institution then allowed all our hospital records to be passed—in fact, sold—to a firm of actuaries. Thanks to The Daily Telegraph, we know that that happened and that the information was analysed and put into a form that insurance companies could use to put up premiums for individuals and certain groups. As a result, we are paying higher premiums. That was our hospital records—“They are safe with us.” I might be getting a bit bitty, but I can pass the article to the Minister, if she wishes.

Another article was bigger—a whole front page—but I have not brought the one that I was going to speak about with me. I think it was yesterday, or the day before, in The Daily Telegraph, or The Guardian. It reported that a private firm had been in discussion with the body that is holding our records and building up the database, because it wants to buy the records, and it wants to buy them quickly. We have to ask about that individual company having discussions before the matter is even agreed, but the interesting point was at the end of the article. Not only was the company set up to deal with pharmaceutical firms—that is already straightforward—but the owner set up another company and stated that among the clients would be pharmaceutical companies. That is the word, “among”. We have to ask who the other customers are—the ones that have not been named. If the pharmaceutical companies are in there, the insurance companies will not be far behind.

In terms of trust, however, the worst thing is that spokesperson for the body in question has said that that company has been told that there will not now be any prior discussions and it must make an application in the normal way, with others, at a later date. What does that spell out—that “not now”? Two days after the balloon goes up, we go into the second period of re-examining the scheme and the matter is in all the papers, the spokesperson suddenly says, “We are not now going to have prior discussions with the firm.” I am sure the Minister will say what in fact the Secretary of State said on Tuesday in the House, namely that that sort of thing went on before, but things have been toughened up. Well, the Secretary of State has toughened things up so much that private discussions are going on with an organisation that we would all wonder about.

A further issue about trust is this: the records were going to be uploaded to the big database last autumn, but the process was stopped because some information about it came into the public arena, and the organisation took fright and said, “We will look at the situation for six months.” Those six months, which run out on 1 March —that is, this Saturday—were used to produce the leaflet I referred to. For all that the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk says about improved efforts, that was the response. It was told that it would have to tell the public about the programme and get the public onside, and the leaflet is what it produced.

This Saturday the records would have started to be uploaded—indeed, there is a suggestion in some minutes from the HSCIC that maternity and children’s care records are already being uploaded. I will have to look at the exact wording of the board minutes, but that is worrying. In three months’ time, all the records would have been in the database and the job would be done, but that was stopped because of the fuss, including in this place. However, the trust is gone. The process was stopped because the public had to be told more, but who in this room feels we have been told more?

Now, the process has been stopped again, and what has the body responsible said publicly? It has not done what the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk did in his speech, in which he gave us some information and set out some starting points for discussion and dialogue to help improve things and to bring people together—I am grateful to him for that. Instead, it has said consistently in all the press releases that it is delaying the scheme so that it can persuade the public how good it is. Perhaps it will send out the hon. Gentleman’s speech. That would do the job, because it was wonderful—I could not fault it, as he told us all the conditions that could be improved.

Members who are not present could put this case better than me. There are genuine worries. We represent people whose records are going into the database without them being aware of what is happening. Questions have been raised by both Government and Opposition Members, and what does the organisation responsible do? It cancels the process for another six months in order to improve a leaflet.

There was a little light earlier this week, with an article in The Times—it was only a short one, but every little bit of light is welcome—saying that the bodies responsible have broadened their approach: they are now aware that there are dangers in pulling all these data together and that the question of security has to be taken more seriously. If that has pushed producing another leaflet to one side, and they are working on that instead, I think the scheme is back on the table. Nobody wants to kill it. I have not met anyone who wants to kill it, or anyone who does not agree that the basis for the scheme is first class. All we want is for our voices to be heard. I represent 60,000-odd people, all of whom have medical records. How could I look one of those people in the eye and say, “I had the chance to stop your private details being attached to your medical records, but sold out?” We have to do something to ensure that security is as good as it can be. It is about trust.

On 15 January this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) asked a question in the House on this matter, just before the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. The Minister here today is very good, but in a way I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), is otherwise engaged—he is the Minister who gave me a bad time when I raised the same point last week—as he answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central. She asked him:

“Has a risk assessment been carried out for the extraction service”—

that is, the extraction of GP records—

“and, if so, will he commit to publishing it and any recommendations made?”

Now that is a perfect question—educated, specific and designed to ease the worries of the general public. What answer did she get? It is parliamentary scrutiny at its best. Asked a specific question, the Minister said:

“We have, of course, constantly assessed it.”

He went on to say:

“I hope the hon. Lady is not criticising the principle of improving and joining up care”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 702-703.]

And there was more of that. Will the Minister tell us—I will be happy if, even with all the resources behind her, she has to answer in writing—whether a risk assessment has been carried out on the extraction service and, if so, will the Secretary of State publish it?

I will say, mischievously, that it does not really matter, because The Daily Telegraph has published extracts of the risk assessment—probably, hysterical extracts—so there is one, and it raises many questions. I do not say that in a hostile way. Thank God somebody who is not a hysterical parliamentarian or a computer whizz but is regarded as sensible has examined the scheme and said that there is a risk. All we wanted was for that to be acknowledged. We simply want a wee bit of movement, to get the maximum possible medical improvement with the minimum of risk to the security of the personal medical records of the general public.

I have a further point about trust—I see you looking at the clock, Mr Bayley, but it is such a pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship that I want to milk every moment. Even this week the Secretary of State was asked a question by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is such a bright and straightforward colleague of the Minister’s in the Conservative party. She asked about those 47 million medical records that were sold to insurance companies, and she was talking about trust—

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to terminate his speech, but perhaps he would sit down just for a moment. I must vacate the Chair now, and my colleague will take over. We have had plenty of time for two speeches from both sides of the Chamber and they have ranged widely, but two more Members want to catch the Chair’s eye. The wind-ups will start a little before 4 o’clock, so I hope that the three Members concerned will keep an eye on the clock to ensure that everyone has a reasonable opportunity to express their views.

[Mr Mudie]

I apologise, Mr Bayley, and I apologise to my colleagues. I understood that only one other Member was on the speaker’s list.

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

The hon. Member for Totnes, a Conservative, said:

“Nothing will undermine this valuable project more than a belief that data will be sold to insurance companies, so will he”—

the Secretary of State—

“set out the way in which he will investigate how that sale was allowed to happen and categorically reassure the House that there will be no sale of care data to insurance companies?”

The Secretary of State’s reply was long, but I will give only the first sentence:

“My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue”.

What issue? She raised two.

He continued:

“I am happy to give that assurance.”— [Official Report, 25 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 147.]

What assurance was he giving?

May I ask the Minister what the Secretary of State intends to do—I do not need an answer now because the matter is in his head—and whether it will be something disgraceful? The BBC totally ignored the fact that 47 million patient records were sold outside the national health service. The Secretary of State’s colleague, the hon. Member for Totnes, asked him to conduct an investigation and give a specific answer.

The Secretary of State said there would be no sale of care data to insurance companies. That reassurance means nothing because the data will not be sold. There will be an appropriate charge to meet administrative costs. NHS England wanted to give it away for nothing, but the HSCIC said it would charge £1 for each data record to cover its costs. Will care data be moved to insurance companies directly or indirectly? Will the Secretary of State tell us in writing how he will ensure that such data do not land in the hands of insurance companies? He has given one of those assurances, and we will find out which one.

The refusal to acknowledge the security risk is at the heart of the issue. One objection is that all the data will be brought together in databases, whatever the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk says. He will remember that I asked how there could be a guarantee that they will not be breached. What is the answer? I will give the answer. They will be breached.

You may remember, Mr Amess, that a Glasgow man in his 20s breached the Pentagon’s database from his bedroom out of curiosity. The US Government wanted to extradite him to America but we fought against that. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, whether he was telling the House that the patient database is more secure than that of the Pentagon? I did not receive an answer, so perhaps the Minister will tell me now, because the Pentagon would like to know.

Will the patient database be more secure than Barclays database, from which the financial records of 27,000 customers were stolen? The computer world says that there is a constant fight to keep databases safe from eastern European countries and there are even cyber attacks in China. But we are being asked to accept that the NHS database will be so secure that it will never be breached.

How do the Government expect to obtain trust if they do not accept that there are limits to security, and that steps should be taken to protect such sensitive data? It is fine for the medical profession to have access to the actual records, because that is what it is interested in, but it is not fine to be able identify individuals. How many people live in one postcode? It could cover a whole street, or a couple of streets. If the age, gender and date of birth were available, it would not be difficult to identify an individual. That is what we are facing, and we want the Government to do something about it.

An extremely worrying suggestion from a good source is that GP databases will be put into a huge centralised database. I have been reliably informed that those databases are not in the GPs’ offices. They do not have separate databases. I have been told that data are sent to three private companies to be stored. I would like some reassurance that that is not so, but if it is the House should be told the basis on which those databases operate, what safeguards exist, and the criteria for the release of those data.

No one in the Chamber would trust the judgment of an organisation that entrusts so much sympathetic and sensitive data to Atos. It is probably deservedly one of the most despised public companies. The fact that it is French does not come into the picture. That does not matter. We laugh, but it is outrageous. It must have been mentioned in every sentence during the debate on welfare benefits. It received millions of pounds from the Government and, if I am charitable, over-extended its remit by putting people off disability benefit in enormous numbers and sometimes tragically. The Government have not sacked it; it decided to walk. However, the Government have now decided that it is such a good firm that the contract for uploading the patient database has been handed to Atos. It is unbelievable. If we are talking about trust, trust implies confidence and judgment—the people we trust must have that—so they have appointed Atos.

I simply say that trust is being lost daily. What we do in the next six months is important. As the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk did, I shall make some suggestions. There must be an urgent and transparent exercise to deal with concerns over security. There must be a streamlined, clear and convenient way to allow people to opt out and there must be massive steps to minimise identifiable data, or data being easily identified to an individual.

It is said that those conditions should be independently scrutinised—that is on the hon. Gentleman’s wish list—by some sort of board. To tie that in with what I said before, I would prefer somebody who has been writing these articles in Computerworld to be on that board. All the things that have happened—I accept that I have taken some time to spell them out—have happened, and trust has been lost. If we are saying that we will get a group of people together and try to bring together the two sides, one way to do it, as we normally do in politics and political life at a lower level, is to have some of the people who are criticising the thing on the board. That would give the public the greatest assurance that this is not a bunch of hand-picked people.

This matter is very important. I am sorry that I have taken so long, and that I am the man who has agreed to work for four days this week and all my colleagues are elsewhere, but there we are.

15:12

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the great opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Amess—what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on his tireless campaigning, and on the full and sensible way in which he made his case.

Research is the most powerful weapon we have in the fight against disease. For decades, access to medical data has been integral to meaningful research—in the 1950s, it showed the link between smoking and lung cancer; in the 1960s, it proved that thalidomide was harmful to unborn children; and today, it helps our doctors identify the most effective treatments for cancer patients—but it is clearly time to move on from hastily scribbled GP records residing in dusty filing cabinets. Patient data are becoming increasingly critical to ensuring the delivery of better treatments, and they can radically improve how long-term conditions are managed and understood in the NHS and the world of medicine.

Aligned to that, we have personalised care, which is, frankly, the future of medicine. Just a few years ago, cancer was treated by giving all patients very similar, or the same, surgery and damaging radiotherapy. As an example, I understand that Cancer Research is now using some 11,000 patient records to see how their cancers respond to particular treatments. The stratified medicine programme, as it is known, goes to the genetic core of a cancer to detect the mutations that cause it and identifies the specific drugs that can stop it.

Researchers can take on those fragmented pieces of data and collate them. By identifying broad patterns, they can start to understand the most effective treatment for specific cancers at the molecular level. That has undoubtedly developed our understanding significantly. We now know that one drug is more effective than standard treatment for one branch of lung cancer and less effective for another. Unlike the trial-and-error approach of the past, the success of care in the future will depend on researchers analysing a sample and then cross-referencing it with a reliable database to identify genetic markers. A targeted treatment can then be tailored.

It is not just cancer that presents opportunities for better data use. Long-term conditions present one of the most significant challenges for the NHS, but research enables us to identify the most successful medications to manage them. The King’s Fund estimates that we spend £77 billion every year treating long-term conditions. NHS spending on diabetes, for instance, is set to rise from £9.8 billion to £16.9 billion over the next 25 years. We would be spending 17% of our current NHS budget just to manage that. If we replicated those sums of money in lots of other areas of expenditure, it would clearly be unsustainable. That highlights that we must use research to identify the most effective treatments, so we can target resources at them.

A recent Cardiff university study looked at just 10% of GP records in this country. It compared two different treatments used for type 2 diabetes over the course of 12 years and found that one of them has a mortality rate that is 58% higher than the other. Patients naturally seek reassurance that they are being given the best course of treatment. Colleagues would acknowledge that constituents who come into our surgeries are very anxious when they believe that the treatment or drugs they have received are not optimal for their use, and want to know why others are not available to them. Patients naturally seek reassurance, but the reality, if we are to reply honestly to our constituents, is that without expanding the evidence base, it will not be an easy task to maintain the narrative that most people get the best drug all the time. We have a duty to ensure that clinicians and scientists are given the right support from Government to make the ambition of personalised care a reality.

I will respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), who raised a number of concerns that my constituents have expressed in e-mails to me, in a few minutes.

The British Heart Foundation tells us that its researchers face considerable barriers due to a complex legal framework and the multitude of bodies involved. That is unacceptable, and it is right that we take steps to tackle unnecessary red tape and barriers to the sharing of information. However, we should also remember the implications. Just this week, we heard that researchers are exploring a test that can identify perfectly healthy patients who are at risk of fatal medical complications based on the proteins in their cells. I do not presume to understand all that, but I recognise the principle that as we have more information, we have the capability to do more, but we remain constrained by the finite budget of the NHS.

On ethics, the hon. Member for Leeds East referred to security of data and the lack of assurance. We have presented the use of data as leading to better outcomes and personalised solutions for patients. We must recognise that there are also enormous ethical implications in respect of the prioritisation of finite resources to treat new conditions and provide new therapies, which may well be just as expensive. So much more will be possible, but it is important that, in parallel with the discussion on access to data, we recognise the challenges of providing an ethical framework for prioritising those finite resources. We will never defeat human frailty altogether, but I want the medical community to reflect on the choices that need to be made to prioritise treatments. Research may find the cure for diabetes or lung cancer, but the second challenge will be to ensure that it is accessible to the population at a time of competition for resources.

Access to data must undoubtedly include safeguards, and obviously there is a lot of scepticism about the reliability of safeguards. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk set out five actions that he feels would address some of those concerns. Legitimate questions must be asked on how we handle large amounts of data and ensure that they are used in the right way and for the right purposes. The six-month delay in the consultation is clearly the right time to explore those issues. However, it would be a great shame if we were to miss the opportunity to open up patient data for medical use.

Hon. Members should not rely on the argument, which has been in the headlines of some newspapers, that the data will be used for malign purposes. I instinctively take a positive view of the state. I think it acts in the interests of its citizens, although I am a relatively new Member of Parliament and my optimism may fray if I am still here in the years ahead. I find it deeply frustrating that, when we have the opportunity to relieve suffering and find ways of delivering personalised care for our constituents, we fall back on arguments about the loss of banking data. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Leeds East said, but the idea that somebody will know our individual medical histories is pretty unlikely. It would be a real shame if we did not move forward by allowing the data to be accessed more readily.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk is right that Parliament should be involved. It is essential that there are annual reports so we understand where things are moving and the positive outcomes. That would improve public understanding of progress. However, it is deeply wrong to prevent medical science from providing more options for health care. I acknowledge that there are security risks, but it is not beyond the wit of my former industry and the IT industry to work out the necessary protocols and safeguards.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is right that we are having it, and it is right that we project the Government’s aspirations and hear concerns about them. I hope the Minister will set out in her response the safeguards that she feels are proportionate and necessary, and explain what the positive outcomes will be for our constituents, who are often frustrated by gaps in provision. The NHS is an incredibly complicated organism, and it is very difficult for a constituency MP to grasp where the problems lie. However, something positive can come from the proposal. I thank once again my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk for his deep knowledge, enthusiasm and inspiration on this subject.

15:24

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing this important debate. Ben Goldacre gave some advice in The Guardian; I cannot be certain whether the article was from 21 or 22 February because one of the problems of modern data is that one cannot tell whether an article was first published on the website. He said:

“if you’re thinking of opting out—wait. If you run care.data—listen.”

This debate will help.

It is sad that most of the public commentary has not mentioned Dame Fiona Caldicott’s review, published in March 2013. It followed up the review that she did in 1996-97. I will not read out the whole executive summary, but she said that we must “justify the purpose” of using or transferring personal confidential data. She continued:

“Don’t use personal confidential data unless it is absolutely necessary…Use the minimum necessary personal confidential data…Access to personal confidential data should be on a strict need-to-know basis…Everyone with access to personal confidential data should be aware of their responsibilities…Comply with the law…The duty to share information can be as important as the duty to protect patient confidentiality”.

Most of the information that the present row is about is not personal confidential data, but anonymised data. Those data are as important to the GP sector as the hospital sector. When Brian Jarman started using publicly available information, he started a process that led to the knowledge about Mid Staffs. There is also the issue of public concern at work or whistleblowing: people who raise problems do not get congratulated, but get criticised, disciplined and treated badly.

The first serious patient confidentiality issue that I came across concerned a doctor who had been in my constituency but was working in Warwickshire. She was sacked and referred to the police, the Information Commissioner and the General Medical Council because she had transferred information about south Asian diabetes patients—those least likely to go to hospital for self-care—to herself at another part of the NHS so she could invite them to attend a meeting to learn how to improve their health.

What Dr Shirine Boardman went through was hell on earth, and it should not have taken someone from outside to point out to the Information Commissioner that to transfer information about a patient for the patient’s benefit from one part of the NHS to another is clearly not a breach of any regulation. The police should have thrown it out within days, not months, and the GMC could have been sharper in saying what the dispute was actually about.

Then there is the case of baby P, in which Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat, an inexperienced locum, was disciplined after Dr Kim Holt had notified Great Ormond Street and others in authority that the level of cover was inadequate. Too often the system finds a victim, but it will not look at itself and ask, “What did we get wrong?”

I have many good doctors in my constituency, but one whom I trust and rely on is Dr Gordon Caldwell. He first alerted me to the fact that the medical training application service—a system for doctors’ training—was not going to work. For months, he and I tried to get to Ministers, medical officers and others in authority. Eventually, when the whole thing blew up, the then Secretary of State for Health said, “Why did nobody tell me?” My reaction was, “I wish you had read some of the replies that you sent to me, and that you had read what I sent to you, to which you replied.”

Dr Caldwell also alerted us to the problem of the NHS IT system. One hospital in each region was going to be sacrificed to a particular version of the system. We managed to put it off for six months, but not bury it. Within six months, the hospital, which had turned over £142 million, had to be given an extra £2 million to do manually what had previously been done satisfactorily by computer because the new computer system did not work.

Let me turn to what Dr Caldwell recommends. He says that the first thing about sharing clinical data is that it should be done from clinician to clinician and that we should know about the big risks of not sharing. Hospital doctors should be able to read the patient’s GP database information in front of the patient. That does not happen normally. GPs should be able to read the hospital notes. That, too, is essential for patient care—safe, swift and timely care. Then we can move on to the question of how data should be accumulated and analysed within the NHS, and then comes the question of how far the accumulated data should go outside the NHS.

I do not get over-excited about the private sector. I thought that my GP and everyone else’s GP had been a private contractor since the founding of the national health service in 1948. However, I do know that only by looking at large data can we find things that matter.

In 1950, Bradford Hill and Richard Doll came out first with the link between smoking and adverse health impacts and also with the effect that asbestos had on the lungs. By the time I started fighting to get into Parliament in the early 1970s, half our political system was still fighting to keep coal miners underground, yet we knew from the pneumoconiosis studies, especially in south Wales, that up to 25% of them or more were getting conditions that, frankly, should be banned under health and safety. The compensation scheme opened in, I think, 1998, applications had to be in by 2004 and 570,000 miners applied because of their lung conditions. Data would have found the information out much faster, and the GP data would have been even more important than the hospital data.

I pay tribute to Peggy Wynn and Arthur Wynn. They said to me, shortly after I got into Parliament in the 1970s, that smoking and excess drinking by parents at or before the time of conception led to a very high increase in the rate of adverse congenital malformations. I put that to the Department of Health. It said it was not so, or probably—more accurately—that there was no evidence for it. The Wynns had found the evidence. Now that has been confirmed and it is part of the common currency of knowledge.

The question is how we can get things to be known earlier and faster in the right way—how the inquisitive can get access to information, formulate a hypothesis and then find how they might disprove it. They cannot always do that by doing regression analysis and then applying what they have found from that to the data that they used for it, because that is bad science.

The good science is to be inquisitive, find ways of checking, find ways, potentially, of disproving what people are after—what they think they have found—and then they can spread it around. That includes some of the medical treatments—not just the physical treatments, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) said, the pharmacological ones. There is also talk about gene therapy, which is after my time.

I believe that it is possible to deal with people’s fears, and without eliminating all risk of any breach at any time. I shall interrupt myself to say that Ben Goldacre says that he is now a father of twins. He gives their age in his article and shows how that could identify him. That is fair enough, but there are those who worry about insurance companies. If I go to an insurance company and say, “Will you please insure my life?”, they will say, “What are your conditions?” I say, “I’ve had a non-malignant basal carcinoma and I stopped smoking in 1986” and various other things about my life. What do they need to go for big data for to find out what I have to tell them to get cover or to be able to have a successful claim if I have not told them?

Then we start saying, “Why can’t we get good new drugs to everyone at once?” That is partly because of money and partly because of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approval system, but the question about how we can get new treatments and drugs to people arises only because they have been developed, and they tend to be developed because someone has had an idea, has done trials and tests and taken the data. Incidentally, I say this to those who get frightfully worried about data. If the reporting system shows that there is or could be a problem with a particular treatment, what happens? The pharmaceutical company is required to go to the research database and see what information can be found there. There is a lot of information around and a lot of it is being used.

This is where I come back to my friends or so-called friends at SumOfUs and 38 Degrees. I do not want to spend my time criticising people who are activists and concerned with public policy. I am very happy to have debates about that. I do sometimes make rude remarks about their campaigning system and how they sometimes have a lack of common sense, foresight or understanding, which I once summed up, famously, in the word “stupid”. But I will say this to the SumOfUs campaign. When it did its question in the YouGov poll, did it say anything about the potential benefits of the data for patients?

There are members of my family who are alive today because of checking on how treatments worked and on the conditions that they later got. I am grateful for that. I happen to be part of the Biobank research project, which takes all the data on the people involved. It watches us; it can look at our records. It does not tell us if it finds anything that is useful to us, but it does help other people. I am part of the NHS INTERVAL study to see whether people can give blood every eight weeks, 10 weeks, 12 weeks or whatever. If I could persuade my wife, my body would go off when still warm to be mucked about with by medical students or others who want to practise on dead bodies before they start working on live people.

All those things I regard as perfectly sensible and satisfactory and as much part of public service as standing here and making this speech. I will not claim that everything that has been done around this care.data project is perfect, but I will say that those who raised the scare ought to be able to say, “We’ll contribute to making it work, so that we can say to everyone: ‘Don’t opt out. Stay in and be of value to others.’” That is part of what I call community.

15:36

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing this timely and important debate and on his extremely thoughtful and powerful opening contribution. I congratulate other hon. Members on their contributions, too.

I know how strongly the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk feels about this issue, and he is right. He has been instrumental in establishing the Patients4Data group. I commend also the work of the co-founder, Graham Silk, and of Patients4Data in campaigning for the opening up of data in the national health service. That group has been very good at bringing the issue of patient data to the forefront of debate on health policy across England. I was pleased to share a platform with the hon. Gentleman earlier today at the summit that he hosted in Parliament.

It goes without saying that a growing population, an ageing population, the rise of co-morbidities and the necessary drive to improve the quality of care and treatments available to patients mean that, in future, the success of the NHS will increasingly rely on the data to which it has access. Indeed, if we take as a starting point the fact that the health and social care worlds, through both desirability and financial factors, are heading towards proper and full integration, it goes without saying that in breaking down the structural silos between the NHS and social care and, within the NHS, between community services, acute services, primary care services and mental health services, we also need to break down the information silo mentality in the NHS.

Genuine “whole person” care will require “whole person” information. Let me put the current controversy over care.data to one side for the time being. The fundamental principle is to create a system designed to link together medical records from general practice with data from hospital activity and eventually extend that to cover all care settings inside and outside hospital. As even my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) said, no one wants to wreck that. It is a really good thing for the future of health and social care in this country.

The improvement of health care in England depends on the removal of the barriers between primary and secondary care—between the GP, the surgery and the district general hospital, and between social care providers and traditional health care providers. Integration is the key to meeting the needs of patients, and the availability of integrated data is central to shaping the services that will meet those needs. It is in that context that the need for data sharing should be seen.

Let me make it clear to the House that Labour supports the principle behind the proposal. Whole-person care must have at its heart a whole-person approach to information. It is important that key statistics drawn from that data set can be used to further clinical research or even future service planning. Let us not forget that if it were not for medical data sharing, the link between thalidomide and deformities at birth would never have been identified, and it would have taken decades longer to establish clearly and definitively the link between smoking and lung cancer, which the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) mentioned. Good medicine is determined by access to good data.

If we are to improve the lives of our children and reduce health inequalities, we must ensure that data are readily available to researchers. Making data at the local GP practice level available for the first time will give us an unprecedented insight into local health outcomes. Which GPs are over-prescribing antibiotics or antidepressants? What factors are causing delays to early diagnosis of cancer? If we are truly to tackle health inequalities, which are a huge issue in a constituency such as mine, we need a joined-up approach. That is simply not possible without ready access to data.

Most people readily recognise the clear benefits of a data-sharing scheme, but there is rightful concern about how the care.data initiative has been implemented so far. Mistrust of care.data is not surprising given the nature of the data involved and the typically haphazard communication about the scheme, particularly the opt-out programme for patients who do not wish to take part. Many people did not even know that the scheme was happening in the first place, at least until the recent media reports. To be fair, if the only information that someone has about care.data is what they have read in the newspapers, they will probably get on the phone to their GP to make an appointment to opt out straight away.

I do not know whether it is the result of incompetence, a reflection on how we live our lives today or a combination of both, but the conventional methods of public information campaigns simply have not worked. Every home in England should have received the leaflet entitled “Better information means better care”, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East happily brought with him.

The blunt truth, however, is that most people either have not received the leaflet or have not looked at it. Questioning of Ministers during the recent Committee stage of the Care Bill, in which approval for care.data sits, revealed that even Ministers do not know whether every house has received the leaflet, what the opt-out rate is or what the regional variations are.

Although I do not get to see much TV these days—such is the nature of the job we do—the first I saw of the advert for care.data was on BBC “Newsnight” last week. That is an important point for Governments of all political persuasions. As I said at the summit earlier, if we think back to the success of some of the big public health campaigns, such as the “AIDS: don’t die of ignorance” campaign nearly 30 years ago, we remember the hard-hitting TV adverts, the big posters with the tombstone on and the powerful leaflets. Today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East pointed out, we are bombarded with so much junk mail—pizza menus, UPVC window offers, supermarket offers and, dare I say it, even the odd political leaflet—

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a two-horse race.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It certainly is a two-horse race in my constituency; do not let the Liberals tell you otherwise. The point is that it is very easy for someone to miss the leaflet about care.data even if they received it. I received it and I read it, but I think that is probably the neurosis of politicians; when a leaflet comes through the door, we automatically think that our opponents have started the general election 16 months early.

Many of my neighbours, who I assume must have received the leaflet, claim that they did not. Likewise, we can easily skip the adverts on TV. In my home, we have Sky Plus, that wonderful technology that allows us to press fast forward as soon as the advert break starts and skip all the adverts. Conventional methods now fail to penetrate with the vast majority of the general public. We probably need to implement a more personalised approach to make the public aware of the scheme, of the benefits, of the implications and of their individual rights.

Incredibly, we have heard stories of people who want to opt out of the system and have had to make an appointment with their already overburdened GPs to do so. I do not think that that is necessarily the right approach. GPs are already struggling to use their time to deliver good quality general practice and primary care services, and perhaps an easier way to allow people to opt out using a variety of methods should be explored. As the Minister will be aware, the chief executives of Mencap, Sense, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the National Autistic Society and Action on Hearing Loss have written to the Secretary of State expressing concerns that information about care.data is not being communicated in an accessible way to disabled people, who are consequently being deprived of the opportunity to make an informed choice about the future of their medical records.

We want care.data to work, and it is in everyone’s interests that it does, but—this is where the pause is welcome—the Government need to get a grip before the aims of the project are lost on a suspicious public anxious about what care.data is for and how their personal data will be used. That risks compromising a project that I think we all recognise to be vital. The proposal by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk for the Government to establish a working group of campaigners and opponents—their inclusion is important—to try to resolve the differences is a sensible way forward. Consensus is the key here.

The Government must understand that the data do not belong to them or to the NHS, but to each of us individually. That should be the starting premise. The combined data that the NHS holds about me are mine and no one else’s, and that should be enshrined. Only then will the Government be able to make the case that inappropriate use of the data could never be sanctioned.

Let us be honest—if the data are mine and they are recognised to be so, that is empowering for me as an individual and a patient. “No decision about me, without me” has been the mantra of Ministers of all political parties in the Department for some years, but how about “no information about me, without me” as the next guiding principle? Our most intimate details are wrapped up in this system. The Government will be able to shore up public and institutional support only when they have convinced the public that the data will not and cannot be abused, and when they have been honest about the potential risks.

The data are owned by the patient, and all parts of the NHS must be their legal custodian. Rights and proper responsibilities must go together—the legal responsibility to use data for necessary purposes, and only for necessary purposes, with proper safeguards in place and, to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East, tougher sanctions to underpin them. We need to convey to the public the laudable intention behind the proposals, because even professional trust in the programme is so low that a poll for the Medical Protection Society found that 80% of family doctors believed that the system could undermine public confidence in the principle of medical confidentiality.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I often try to look at the questions that people are asked. I am not absolutely certain that doctors were asked, “On balance, would you recommend that people stay in to contribute their information for the benefit of all?”

[Andrew Gwynne]

I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but if we are to reintroduce the element of public confidence, enshrining proper rights and responsibilities will start to build that sense of trust. As the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk suggested, it is consensus that will get us where we want and need to be.

One example of the problems that can arise lies in recent media reports, which we have heard about again in this debate, including those about the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which obtained at least 13 years of hospital data equating to 47 million patients. Often, media reports are not quite what they seem, but the damage is, sadly, done as a consequence. I would hate for the benefits of information sharing within the NHS, and of drawing out anonymised data sets from that system for beneficial medical research, to be jeopardised by incorrect assumptions made from media reports. There would be rightful public revulsion if identifiable or cross-identifiable information were to fall into the hands of insurers and other private interests that do not have the public good in mind, but such reports are potentially damaging to public confidence in care.data, which is already quite low.

That is why we welcome the Government’s decision to pause the scheme. I hope that they will use the opportunity wisely to reflect on how better to engage with the public about the real benefits that we have discussed in this debate, and to revolutionise patients’ rights: make the data theirs; make the NHS their custodian; put in real safeguards and, importantly, proper penalties; and have rights with responsibilities and whole-person information for the age of whole-person care. That would be genuinely transformational.

I reiterate to the Minister that we are happy to support the measures in the House, but as it stands, we fear that the security regime is woefully inadequate. There is still time to save it, and we on the Labour Front Bench have offered the Secretary of State for Health our full support if he can come up with an offer that satisfies everyone. On Tuesday, those points were put to the Health Secretary at Health questions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Health Secretary. Maybe the desire for consensus and a way forward is sometimes lost in the theatre of the Chamber of the House of Commons, so I repeat those points to the Minister in this debate, which has been much more consensual and informative than it would ever be on the Floor of the House during Health questions. I sincerely hope that she will respond to them positively.

There are five key protections that Labour wants to introduce. First, we want tougher penalties for any misuse of data; my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East made that point far more eloquently than I. We also want to keep the requirement for the Secretary of State to sign off on any new application to access the data, which the Government are seeking to remove in the Care Bill. Accountability to the Secretary of State, to Parliament and to us as Members of Parliament on behalf of our constituents is a fundamental requirement that would start to satisfy the need for oversight.

We want and need full transparency for all organisations granted access to the data, so there is full openness about who has access and what data they have. We need a proper targeted and personalised awareness campaign for people with a learning disability, autism or sensory impairments, so we think that GPs should be issued with clear guidance to ensure that all of their patients are informed. We want easier opt-out arrangements than those possible at present. If the Secretary of State is happy to ensure that the new provisions are in place, we are happy to lend our support to make it happen.

In closing, I should say that confidentiality has always had a tense relationship with scientific progress when it comes to clinical research, but it is only right that information is made available outside the NHS in a completely anonymised form. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk is quite right about clinical data: their potential is enormous, they can revolutionise systems and processes and they can get to the heart of problems in certain areas far sooner. It is hugely empowering for future patients to get away not just from the silo mentalities of the structures of our health and social care system—all parties want to do that—but from the silo mentality about data that exists in parts of the health and social care system: whole-person care and whole-person information.

I commend the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk for his work on this hugely important issue and congratulate him on securing this important debate, on the summit in Parliament earlier today and on the work that he is doing alongside patients for data. Hopefully, we can get some movement on this from the Government, so that we end up with a scheme with the appropriate safeguards. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

15:57

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), as has everyone else, on securing the debate, as well as all the Members who have contributed to this thoughtful debate. I must start with an apology for not being the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who is otherwise engaged on important business, but I will do my best to stand in for him in this area of his portfolio. If there is anything to which I am unable to respond during the debate, I undertake to do so afterwards.

I add to the voices that have welcomed the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk on developing the Patients4Data website and other work, and have praised its co-founder, Graham Silk, and all its supporters. I particularly thank my hon. Friend for bringing such a calm, rational and well-informed voice, which is ever more needed in our public discourse. He has become a respected voice throughout the House in this area of expertise for that reason, and has amply demonstrated it again.

The Government support the sentiments outlined in the private Member’s Bill that my hon. Friend introduced. They are in line with the Government’s information strategy for health and care in England, “The power of information: Putting all of us in control of the health and care information we need”, which was published in 2012. His proposed Bill would provide for ownership of, and access to, patient records and health data to empower patients in everyday health care and research. He has outlined the principles in more detail today. The Bill would create a new statutory duty of care on NHS professionals to use and update information and ensure that the next professional on the patient’s care pathway is using properly maintained patient records.

I want briefly to deal with those two areas in turn, and, as Members would expect, I will then touch on some of the aspects of care. Data that have been explored during the debate. The Government feel that there is no need for legislation to provide ownership and access to patient records—the shadow Minister touched on that. Patients already have the legal right to access information in their own health and care records, but it has not been easy get it because it means requesting paper copies, and people might be charged. Easily accessing records online does not require changes to the law, but it is a big challenge to the culture and practices of many health and care organisations and professionals.

The NHS Future Forum emphasised the required cultural shift and the importance of health and social care operating

“as if it is the patient’s or service user’s data”.

The shadow Minister made a good point about the fact that integrating data naturally follows integrating care. The Government’s information strategy stresses the need for a change in culture and mindset, in which health and care professionals, organisations and systems recognise that information in our care records is fundamentally about us. It can therefore become normal for us to access our records easily.

The information strategy also makes it clear that patients will be able to access their own health and care records online; review those records, including test results; refer back to them during the course of care; and benefit by sharing, if they choose, that information with a range of other people who they want to help them with the care and support they need, when they need it. However, to alter legal ownership of patient records is a difficult way forward. Information is not property in the sense in which physical objects are, but is subject to intellectual property rights, common law confidentiality rights and obligations, and rights and obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Ownership implies a level of control over a record that is unrealistic and impractical for NHS medical records.

Let me outline why that is the case. Patients cannot, and should not, control what a clinician writes in a record, nor should they be able to delete items from a complete record. However, it is right that patients should be empowered to use the information in their records, for example by scrutinising their records for potential errors, or accessing them to help to manage their care. Colleagues might find it interesting to know that NHS England has committed to ensuring that people will be able to access their GP record online by March 2015. That is a real commitment and is in the NHS mandate. Ministers will, of course, hold it to account on that.

The law already provides individuals with considerable control over medical records should they choose to exert their rights, but it also provides a balance that protects the interests of those who provide care, and enables them to respond to complaints or litigation, monitor the quality of care they are providing, and learn lessons to improve the care of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk gave a personal example of where that would have been helpful to him, and I have similar personal experience of where someone being able to give such easy access to their data would have been enormously useful. That is also ever more relevant to a sandwich generation of the age of some of us in the Chamber who are caring for the generation below and the generation above. My hon. Friend brought that relevant point very much to life.

On the duty on professionals to share data, sharing information is pivotal to improving the quality, safety and effectiveness of our care, as well as our own experiences of care. It is also critical to modernising care through raising quality, improving outcomes and reducing inequalities—now a legal duty—as well as improving productivity and efficiency. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned the Caldicott review, which outlined the many benefits of sharing data, as well as the cultural change required to create a rebalancing of sharing and protecting information that is in patients’ and service users’ interests.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

My hon. Friend has prompted me to remember half a sentence I meant to say when I was talking about the baby P case. If all the medical contacts with baby P had been brought together in one place, any clinician would have known that there was a major problem.

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend gives a perfect illustration of the point. We have all, particularly as MPs, encountered people who say, “Oh no—data protection!” and obfuscate in some way, but what they say is almost always absolute nonsense. There are lots of existing legal requirements to share data where needed to protect and look after people. We recognise the valuable role that my hon. Friend has played in making and championing that point.

The Secretary of State has challenged the NHS to go digital by 2018. That will help the sharing of patient records across the whole medial pathway. I echo and welcome the general point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk on technology and its empowering possibilities. As public health Minister, that is very close to my heart. Of all the demographic surveys and insights into people’s situations that I see, the factor that defies the usual arc of deprivation is the ownership of a mobile phone. That is a great democratising piece of technology and I am keen to see that we use it more and give it more potential to put power into the hands of the previously powerless in this sphere of our lives.

On Government support for the concept of data sharing and the unique identifier, my hon. Friend has been working closely with officials from my Department. We have welcomed that working relationship. Officials have been exploring possible avenues for legislation to ensure that the sentiments outlined in my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill and his speech can be taken forward. We are all hoping for a successful outcome in the private Member’s ballot so that we can make progress.

Data-sharing options and the provision of clear guidance that underlines the need for sharing and clarifies what the law already allows are being considered. We are considering placing a duty to share on commissioners and providers. That would force such organisations to ensure that contracts include such a duty to help to change the culture and mindset so that we share data when we need to.

In addition, we are considering introducing a measure to ensure the consistent use of the unique patient identifier—the NHS number—across the whole health and care system. The intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) illustrated why it is so important that, when we know critical things about a patient, we join them up. The easiest way to do that is by consistently using their unique identifier. The use of the NHS number will unify and standardise the recording and use of information for the benefit of both patients and clinicians. We have heard examples, and I am sure we can think of others. The Government are working on ways in which to ensure that measures are introduced on the duty to share and the use of NHS numbers.

Sharing information for medical research has demonstrated the many benefits that it can bring to us all in society, and that has been extremely well articulated today. I will shortly address the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie). Members have touched on issues—including cancer, heart disease and diabetes, to name just a few—that have benefited greatly from the sharing of data, and treatments have been found for seriously ill patients.

For reasons I will explain, I want to turn relatively briefly to the care.data programme. It has been much discussed in the House, sometimes heatedly but sometimes calmly, as it has been today. Members have made various points about the programme. My view, which I think is shared in principle by everyone in the Chamber, is that overall the care.data programme is, or has the potential to be, a good thing, for all the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk and others. It offers a great deal to help us to bring benefits to patients. We have heard examples about detecting the problems at Mid Staffs, about autism and the disproven link with MMR, and about thalidomide.

I want to add an example that falls within my portfolio. In health care discussions, there is sometimes a tendency to think that we are moving forward only from the base we already have—that we bank all the existing benefits, progress and discoveries and move forward from that point. However, an area of great concern to people in this country and around the world is the development of anti-microbial resistance and the work required on that. The number of drug resistant conditions is growing, and that is frightening.

We hope that the ability to scrutinise the data will allow us to understand the pattern of growth of drug resistance, because that threatens to take us several steps back from what we assume to be our basic level of health care: the things that we have in our armoury against disease. It is something we need to take very seriously, otherwise there will be a great economic and human cost.

It is clear that most people agree with care.data’s aims, but they have justifiable concerns about how they are being implemented. People want more information and details about how the programme will actually work. That has been well articulated by various colleagues during this debate. People want rights over how their health and care data, especially data that identify them, are used.

Before I became an MP, I worked for a large national retailer organising large national marketing campaigns, so I could probably entirely occupy another debate on the vagaries or otherwise of door drops and the mix of communications needed to reach most people. I say “most people”, because it is almost impossible to design a programme that reaches everyone in a way that they remember. We might reach everyone, but an awful lot of quite good factual detail has proven that there will always be some people who do not believe they have been reached. We have to reach a reasonable level of breakthrough and cut-through with the messaging. I think that is well understood after the last couple of weeks of debate.

I understand but do not entirely share the cynicism of the hon. Member for Leeds East with regard to big Government and large institutions. I lean slightly more towards my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury—perhaps for the same reasons, because we both came into the House in 2010—and his slightly more optimistic view on life. I meet people in the health system all the time—every day, every week—who have dedicated a lifetime to patient care and to trying to understand how we can make the human condition better. I also meet people wanting to achieve great things, and perhaps we all sometimes forget that we have to take people with us on the journey, and we need to explain.

The hon. Member for Leeds East also touched on a point that has been well made recently, which is to be honest about the benefits versus the risks. I agree, but I think he overdid the risks; he focused almost exclusively on them. However, he is right to say that we have to have a balance between the two, and we have to articulate that. Ironically, people will trust us more if we tell them about the risks as well as the benefits. I really believe that transparency drives greater trust, and I think that point has been made elsewhere. I read the article by Ben Goldacre, and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has articulated it as well. The more transparent we can be about the balance, the better it is.

On the way people view data and balance risk in everyday life, we see the world rapidly changing all the time. The information that people put out about themselves in the public domain in exchange for ease of access, convenience, speed or economy is quite surprising, so perhaps attitudes are changing around where the balance lies. Nevertheless, we need to explain it. Picking up the shadow Minister’s point, we particularly need to explain it and be open about it with those who perhaps are least able to understand the risk versus benefit balance. That is a good point, and I will take it away with me.

We have a period for reflection. The delay in the extraction of the first data means the data collection from GPs’ surgeries will now begin in the autumn, rather than in April this year. It will allow for more time to build up our understanding on the benefits of using the information, the safeguards in place, and how people can opt out. NHS England informs us that it does know how to make it easier for people to opt out if they wish to and that that can be done by phone. That is one of the points picked up in the debate.

We need to highlight the interdependency of trust and the levels of opt-out, because we do not want people to opt out for the wrong reasons. If they want to opt out for the right reasons, because they have made a balanced assessment, that is absolutely fine; it is their right. I share and echo the sentiments of those who are concerned, but I would advise them to wait a bit, see what happens during this time of reflection and make an assessment of where we get to before doing something that might be based on what is going on in the media at the moment.

I want to reassure the Chamber that the Secretary of State for Health, my ministerial colleagues and I are listening to all the concerns. I am not in a position to respond to some of the specifics. We recognise the points made by Opposition Front Benchers—articulated again today—and we are looking carefully at the issues. If need be, safeguards will be put in place over and above what NHS England does as part of its own engagement, and that will help to build public confidence. I cannot go into detail today, but considerable thought is being given to the issues, and when we can comment and add clarity, we certainly will.

Today’s debate has been a timely opportunity. It goes without saying that I will report back to ministerial colleagues who lead on this to draw their attention to the points that have been made, particularly the points about transparency, security and information for the public. Both aspects of the private Member’s Bill championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk are being worked on. They featured as the main thrust of his speech today. The Government are keen to ensure that the measures are taken forward. We believe that sharing information for medical research has demonstrated the many benefits it can bring to us all in society.

Before I close, I should mention—I think it is useful for colleagues—the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and the data it used. I think the shadow Minister also alluded to it. I want to put on the record that the data it used was publicly available, non-identifiable and in aggregate form. They were used not to analyse individual insurance premiums, but general variances in critical illness. The information was used to ensure premiums were fair, not to calculate individual premiums.

The moneys paid to the Health and Social Care Information Centre were for administration costs to compile the data, and of course the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has set stronger legislative safeguards. That does not mean that the information was wrongly given; it does not mean that that organisation has said that greater scrutiny should not be applied. However, for the sake of being straight with the public about the balance of risk, it is important to put what happened in that particular instance on the record.

To conclude, the Government are actively looking at what we can do to promote the sharing of data in a safe and secure way, using the NHS number to help connect medical records across the whole health and care system as we move between services. That, as well as professionals being able to access relevant records online simply, securely and all in one place—for example, via clinical portals—will enable more joined-up care. Together with the points I have made about care.data and the potential that that has, which others have articulated, I think we know there is an enormous prize in our grasp, but we know we will win that prize only if we are very careful and thoughtful about how we proceed, taking the public with us. This afternoon’s debate has greatly added to our thinking around that.

16:18

[George Freeman]

Thank you, Mr Amess, for the opportunity to wrap up. I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. I thank Opposition Members for their spirit of cross-party support and the Minister for her generous remarks and the encouraging things she said about the Government’s commitment to the process of consultation and to the Patients4Data campaign. I also thank her for what she has just told the House about the Bill and some of the measures set out. I look forward to working with her and officials to try to make a success of that and to supporting her and the Department in that work. Thank you also, Mr Amess, for your and your colleague’s chairmanship this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

16:18

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

Thursday 27 February 2014

Armed Forces Pay Review Body (Triennial Review)

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body (AFPRB), an advisory non-departmental public body (NDPB).

Triennial reviews of NDPBs are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring, and improving, the accountability and effectiveness of public bodies.

The AFPRB provides independent advice to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on the remuneration and charges for members of the armed forces.

The review will be conducted in accordance with Government guidance for reviewing NDPBs, and will focus on the core questions of effectiveness and good governance. It will be carried out in an open and transparent way, and interested stakeholders will be given the opportunity to contribute their views.

I shall announce the findings of the review in due course.

Public Records: FCO Archives

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

On 30 November 2012, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe informed Parliament, Official Report, column 36WS, that a large volume of FCO archive records had come to light which are known as the “special collections”. On 12 December 2013, my right hon. Friend also informed Parliament, Official Report, column 55WS, that a high-level inventory of the special collections we published on gov.uk in 2012 had been updated with significantly more detail.

There are an estimated 600,000 special collection files. Initially, a specialist contractor appointed by the FCO estimated the number of files at 1.2 million but this has since been corrected following a reassessment of the number of files in formats other than paper.

The special collection files are outside the normal FCO filing sequence and many—but by no means all—contain records of historical value. The historical value of the files will be determined through an appraisal and selection process under the guidance and supervision of The National Archives (TNA). The FCO also holds a further 600,000 standard files created by FCO departments and overseas posts, around 500,000 of which are not yet due for transfer to TNA.

On 5 May 2011, Official Report, column 24WS, I made a commitment to Parliament that every paper of interest from our holding of colonial administration files would be released to The National Archives, subject only to legal exemptions. This project, involving the release of nearly 20,000 files, was completed in November 2013 in line with the published timetable.

I am equally committed to the release of the records in the special collections. This is a much bigger project which will take longer. Work is under way. We have already conducted an audit of the material and we are currently building the capability to begin preparing the files for release. We have published an overview of our release plans on www.gov.uk/archive-records.

I am very pleased that Professor Tony Badger, Paul Mellon Professor of American history and Master of Clare College at the university of Cambridge, is continuing in his role of independent reviewer and will be providing rigorous and independent oversight of our release programme.

Mitochondrial Donation

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

We are today publishing for consultation draft regulations to allow mitochondrial donation to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease from mother to child. The regulations will be subject to full scrutiny by the public and Parliament through the affirmative procedure.

It is estimated that one in 200 children born every year in the UK have some form of mitochondrial DNA disorder. These disorders can range from mild and asymptomatic to severe enough to be fatal. However, at present, mitochondrial donation techniques to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease are prohibited.

In anticipation of significant advances in this field, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was amended in 2008 to include a regulation-making power that, if introduced, would enable mitochondrial donation to take place in treatment. This legislation is reserved to Westminster.

The Government gave very careful consideration to advice they received from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in March 2013 about the comprehensive public dialogue and consultation process the HFEA has undertaken into the acceptability of new techniques for mitochondrial donation. As a result, in June 2013 we announced our intention to consult on draft regulations which would allow this.

This proposed change in the legislation would give women who carry mitochondrial DNA disease the opportunity to have genetically-related children without risk of serious conditions. It would also keep the UK in the forefront of scientific development in this area. In framing the draft regulations, we have largely accepted and taken account of the advice contained in the HFEA’s report of 28 March 2013.

Consultation on the draft regulations begins today and will run until 21 May 2014. We welcome responses from everyone with an interest in this area. We have also asked the HFEA to reconvene the expert panel to review the latest evidence of safety and efficacy. We will consider their advice alongside the responses to the consultation.

Expert briefing meetings for hon. Members and peers will be arranged during the consultation period, and will be an opportunity to discuss issues arising from the consultation document.

“Mitochondrial Donation: A consultation on draft regulations to permit the use of new treatment techniques to prevent the transmission of a serious mitochondrial disease from mother to child” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 3 and 4 March in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland is also due to attend on behalf of the Scottish Administration. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.

The Interior day of the Council will start with a general state of play update from the presidency on the Europol negotiation. The presidency are also expected to seek agreement from the Council to remove the provisions in the Europol text relating to European Police College (CEPOL). This would secure formal agreement not to proceed with the Commission’s proposed merger of the two agencies. The UK will support this position and there is expected to be a strong overall consensus in favour of opposing the merger.

There will be a discussion on the EU’s future JHA programme, which will replace the current Stockholm programme. This exchange of views will focus on the Commission’s forthcoming communication, which will not be published until after Council. The UK will press for more clarity on the next steps towards developing a strong JHA Council contribution to the new programme, which should include key priorities such as a strong commitment to tackle free movement abuse and modern slavery.

The Council will be updated on current migratory pressures, with presentations from Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office. The pressures stemming from the Syrian crisis are of particular importance here, in particular the situation in Bulgaria, which has been under particular pressure in recent months. This item will be followed by discussion on the Task Force Mediterranean, which was convened by the Commission following the tragedy off Lampedusa last October. The UK participated in the taskforce meetings, which led to a set of coherent proposals for concrete action to prevent further migrant deaths in the Mediterranean. At this Council we understand that the Commission will set out an action plan for implementation, which will require the co-operation of the member states, European External Action Service and EU agencies. The UK will reiterate its support for this work; we are currently developing plans for our contribution in conjunction with other European partners.

Over lunch, practical co-operation on the area of returns will be discussed.

During the mixed committee there will be an update on the proposed data protection directive which covers areas of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and would replace the existing data protection framework decision 2008/977/JHA. The UK’s priority is to ensure the right of access to, and to erase, personal data does not prejudice or hinder criminal investigations or proceedings.

During AOB there will be an update by the Commission on the implementation of the new financial programmes for 2014-20 for home affairs. The presidency may also wish to discuss the draft directives on intra-corporate transfers and student researchers.

The justice day will begin with information from the presidency on a number of current proposals. First, the European account preservation order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters which the UK has not so far opted into, given our concerns about the adverse impact on debtors. The Council will then be updated on the regulation amending the “Brussels I” regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This is a technical amendment, fully supported by the UK, to set the rules governing jurisdiction for the Unified Patent Court. Finally the Council will receive an update on the proposal for a regulation amending the Council regulation on insolvency proceedings, which is a key measure for growth and the UK broadly supports the Commission’s proposal.

The presidency will next facilitate a state of play/orientation debate on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Government continue to oppose this measure and agree with Parliament that the Commission has on this occasion breached the principle of subsidiarity.

This will be followed by an orientation debate on the recently published proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings. The presidency is expected to try to establish some guidance to inform the expert-level negotiations. The Government have offered time in March for the House of Commons to debate the question of the UK’s opt-in regarding this proposal.

There will be a state of play/orientation debate on the proposal for a general data protection regulation. The UK continues to believe that this proposal is far from ready for a general agreement, and that no such agreement can occur until the text as a whole has been approved. The proposal remains burdensome on both public and private sector organisations and the Government would not want to see inflexible rules on transfers outside the European economic area which do not reflect the realities of the modern, interconnected world.

Over lunch there will be a discussion on the ways and means to promote the simplification and acceptance of public documents: expectations by the citizens and business.

On non-legislative activities, the Commission will present its 2014 anti-corruption report, which we broadly welcome, to the Council. There will then be a presentation of the Commission’s communication on the future development in the JHA area where the UK, as mentioned before, will push for a strong Council contribution, including a focus on better targeted legislation, consolidation where necessary, and ensuring that the EU prisoner transfer agreement is fully implemented by member states. The Council will then seek to adopt conclusions on justice systems in the European Union. The UK supports these conclusions which highlight the deficiencies of the justice scoreboard approach to monitoring national justice systems and suggest a more collaborative dialogue between member states. This will be followed by a presentation by the Commission on the 2014 justice scoreboard itself, expected for publication in March. Justice day will end with a presentation by the Commission on the 6th annual EU disability high-level group report on the implementation of the UN convention on the rights of person with disabilities.

Contingencies Fund Advance

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

I would like to inform the House that the Department for International Development: Overseas Superannuation requires an advance to discharge its commitments which are set out in its supplementary estimate 2013-14, published on 12 February 2014 as HC 1006—CG supply estimates, supplementary estimates.

Parliamentary approval for additional net cash of £6 million for existing services has been sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for International Development: Overseas Superannuation. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £3 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I am today publishing the Government response to the “Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps” consultation that took place in the autumn of 2013. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The House will be aware that this programme of reform commenced in April last year when we launched the initial consultation “Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system”. The rationale for proposing this package of measured reforms has always been clear and has always remained the same: due to the acute pressure on the public finances we must continue to bear down on the cost of legal aid to ensure we are getting the best value possible, while ensuring that the system commands the confidence of the public. When almost every area of public spending is facing increased scrutiny, the legal aid scheme cannot be ring-fenced.

Today’s publication outlines the Government’s final decision on a modified model of competitive tendering for criminal legal aid contracts in England and Wales; and a range of new measures requested by the Law Society and others to help lawyers through what I know will be a challenging period. The plans published today include a package of financial support and specialist advice specifically designed to help lawyers respond to the current challenging economic climate, including:

a commitment to work with BIS to provide guarantees for commercial loans to legal firms who need to invest to deliver the new contracts;

measures to ease cash flow in legal aid firms through interim payments for lengthy Crown court cases;

exploring the possibility of grants to aid practitioners to invest in digital technology as part of a digital criminal justice system; and

providing, through business partnering, support and guidance on business planning and restructuring.

The response paper also outlines our approach to reform the advocates graduated fees scheme (AGFS) in order to achieve further simplification of the fee structure by adopting a model broadly based on the Crown Prosecution Service model.

As part of our ongoing monitoring of the impact of reforms and the sustainability of the scheme generally, the Ministry of Justice will undertake reviews of the operation of the new advocacy and litigation services frameworks one year after each is implemented.

We recognise that it is not simply legal aid funding arrangements that determine the success and viability of the criminal justice system, and we have distinct pieces of work that will complement our plans for legal aid. The independent Jeffrey review into the provision of independent criminal advocacy in the courts continues and will report in due course. In addition, the Lord Chief Justice has asked Sir Brian Leveson, president of the Queen’s bench division, to conduct a review to identify ways to reduce to the minimum the number of pre-trial hearings that necessitate defendants in custody and advocates attending court; and to identify ways to reduce and streamline the length of criminal proceedings.

Alongside the response to consultation we are laying later on today the Government response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) report on three parts of the reform package: restricting the scope of criminal legal aid for prison law, the residence test for civil legal aid and removing civil legal aid for borderline cases.

As we move away from the consultation phase to delivery, subject to parliamentary approval where applicable, we will continue to engage with the professions to help them prepare for the implementation of these reforms.

Taken in its entirety, we estimate the “Transforming Legal Aid” package will save the taxpayer around £215 million per annum by 2018-19.

Parliamentary Question (Correction)

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)]

The Electoral Commission informs me that the response to written question number 186084, which was printed on 10 February 2014, Official Report, columns 414-16W, contained an error. The question asked for the 50 wards with the greatest change in turnout between the 2005 and 2010 general elections. The original answer showed changes in turnout with plus signs where there should have been minus signs and vice versa. I regret any inconvenience caused as a result of this.

The correct response is shown below.

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd): To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, if he will list the 50 wards with the greatest change in turnout between the 2005 and 2010 general elections. [186084]

Reply

The Electoral Commission informs me that it does not hold this information at ward level. This is because Returning officers are not required to report data at ward level for parliamentary elections.

However, the table below shows the 50 constituencies with the greatest change in turnout between the 2005 and 2010 general elections (note a positive percentage indicates an increase in turnout in 2010, a negative indicates a decrease).

DVLA Review

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I am today publishing the report on the review of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), which I announced on 8 October 2013. The Department for Transport commissioned this review as part of its commitment to delivering improved quality and better value motoring services to the public, business and other interested parties.

The review has concluded that while DVLA is an effective organisation that is delivering important services, there is significant scope to increase efficiency. Strategic recommendations have been made covering DVLA’s digital transformation, reducing the burden on customers, modifying the governance and management structure and optimising DVLA’s value as a service provider for Government.

I am content to accept all of the recommendations in the report. I have asked the chief executive to prepare a strategic plan for DVLA on this basis, which prioritises those measures that will bring the greatest advantage to customers.

I am placing a copy of the review and my response in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website. I would like to thank Mary Reilly and the review team for their work.

Local Tolled Crossings

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Today I am publishing a consultation document detailing proposals to simplify the process set out in Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954—the “1954 Act”—for amending tolls at local statutory tolled undertakings.

Local statutory tolled undertakings can be bridges, tunnels, lifts and ferry crossings where tolls are charged for their use in accordance with relevant Acts of Parliament. The majority of these are owned by private companies or individuals but some are owned by local authorities. There are around 11 local statutory tolled undertakings in England that are currently required to follow the procedures contained in the 1954 Act to increase their tolls.

Under this Act, operators are required to apply to the Secretary of State for any increase in tolls regardless of how big or small. This process can be costly and time consuming for the operator, and will often involve a public inquiry. These costs are likely to be passed on to the user through higher tolls. The Government have therefore decided the process needs to be simplified to reduce the administrative burden on operators and Government, while ensuring the interests of users continue to be protected.

Our preferred option is a simplified procedure for increases in tolls which are no greater than inflation minus 1%, so providing an incentive for the crossing operators to keep any increases in tolls below this level. The consultation document, including the impact assessment, will be available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website.

Locations:

1. Aldwark bridge, near Linton-On-Ouse, north Yorkshire

2. Bournemouth-Swanage motor-road ferry, entrance of Poole harbour, Dorset

3. Clifton suspension bridge, Leigh Woods, Bristol

4. Dartmouth-Kingswear floating bridge, Dartmouth, Devon

5. Dunham bridge, Dunham-on-Trent, Lincolnshire

6. Rixton and Warburton bridge, Warburton, Cheshire

7. Shrewsbury (Kingsland) bridge, Shrewsbury, Shropshire

8. Swinford bridge, Swinford, Oxfordshire

9. Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry, Saltash, Cornwall

10. Whitchurch bridge, Whitchurch-on-Thames, Oxfordshire

11. Whitney-on-Wye bridge, Whitney-on-Wye, Herefordshire

Child Poverty Strategy 2014-17

Thursday 27th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Today, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Schools, I am publishing the Government’s draft child poverty strategy 2014-17. We are seeking views through a public consultation, closing on 22 May 2014.

Our draft strategy builds on the good progress we have made so far in tackling child poverty. Despite the tough economic climate, employment has increased by 1.3 million since 2010 and the number of children in workless households has fallen by 274,000. Poor children are doing better than ever at school; the proportion of children on free school meals getting good GCSEs including English and maths has increased from 31% in 2010 to 38% in 2013.

Alongside our strategy, we are publishing an in-depth evidence review which identifies what leads families to be stuck in poverty and what leads poor children to become poor adults. By identifying and understanding the root causes of child poverty, now and across generations, we can target action effectively. This is an important step in our mission to eradicate child poverty.

Based on the evidence in the review, our strategy sets out the action Government are taking to tackle child poverty.

It sets out how we will tackle poverty now through supporting families into work and to increase their earnings, support living standards through decreasing costs for low-income families and prevent poor children becoming poor adults through raising their educational attainment.

However, central Government action cannot, by itself, end child poverty. Action is also needed by employers, the devolved Administrations, local areas and the voluntary and community sector. Today, we are asking for views on what more can be done and how we can all work together to end child poverty. Only by working together can we transform the lives of the poorest children in our society.

Grand Committee

Thursday 27th February 2014 Grand Committee

Thursday, 27 February 2014.

Charity Commission

Thursday 27th February 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

13:00

Asked by

[Baroness Barker]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the Charity Commission.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I declare a few interests. I own a business called Third Sector Business and am a consultant with B&W Consulting, both of which are small organisations that work extensively with charities.

I thank all noble Lords who will take part in the debate. The Charity Commission was founded under the Charitable Trusts Act 1853, and I suspect that the first debate on the subject of its effectiveness probably took place in 1854. It is a subject upon which many people have an opinion and few, if any, are neutral, and it is one to which Parliament returns often in the light of difficult cases. So it is today.

The commission has been heavily criticised in a series of reports over the past 12 months and at the moment appears somewhat beleaguered. The reason for holding this debate today is simple. As long as England and Wales continue to have a large and diverse charitable sector, it is in the best interests of government, charities and, above all, the public that there is an effective regulator of charities. We had the welcome news this week from the Charity Commission that the income of charities in England and Wales has risen by almost £3 billion and now surpasses £61 billion. That is a lot of public money sitting in trust, and the organisations to which it is entrusted have the right to show that they are worthy of that trust.

Today’s debate is an opportunity for Members of your Lordships’ House, with their long and distinguished experience in these matters, to think about ways in which we can rebuild confidence in the Charity Commission’s regulation of charities. It is not an opportunity for another bout of the favourite sport of bashing the commission. Noble Lords will remember that last year the commission appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, which asked the National Audit Office to review the commission’s effectiveness as a regulator and report back. The PAC produced a report written in characteristically scathing terms. It is a shame that the precision and forcefulness of its forensic examination and questioning was followed by a set of rather unclear and unhelpful suggestions for the commission. It would have been more helpful if the PAC had given a clear indication of exactly how it wished the commission to fulfil its functions in future.

The NAO report, the Regulatory Effectiveness of the Charity Commission, was published on 4 December, along with its report on the commission’s handling of the Cup Trust. Those reports do not make for easy reading but they make plain that the problems that the commission now faces are longstanding and are not the fault of the current officers of the commission, or indeed their immediate predecessors.

It is helpful to look briefly at the history of this issue to understand why some of those underlying problems have arisen. In the mid-1990s, charities grew substantially as providers of public services under contract. In 1996 the NCVO produced the Deakin report, which stated that in order to have a vibrant voluntary sector there had to be robust regulation, a clear role for the regulator and a clear legal framework within which the regulator and charities could operate with confidence. In 2001 the NCVO returned to the issue and produced a report entitled For the Public Benefit?, which, again, stated the need for a clear legal framework and, in particular, for there to be clear guidance about what is and is not a charity. That led to the 2004 Charities Bill. Many of your Lordships sat in this room throughout 2005 during the passage of that Bill and had yet more discussions on key issues such as: what is public benefit? I have to say that the decision of Parliament to leave the matter of what is public benefit to be decided by case law presents the commission with an ongoing and enduring problem in delivering its role as a regulator.

Today we are back to the position where the commission has had its budget reduced by one-third and, as ever, there are arguments about the way in which it has gone about pursuing particular cases. However, it is clear that we need to help the commission to recover ground and confidence. I work with lots of organisations, and the best of them—it does not matter which sector they are in: public, private or voluntary—do three things: they have a clear vision of what they are trying to achieve, they have the information that they need to fulfil that vision, and they have excellent relationships with other organisations. Were we to look at the commission in terms of those three issues, that might help us, the Government and the commission to see our way forward.

At heart, there remains a lack of clarity about what the commission’s job is. Following the strategic review of the commission a couple of years ago, everyone has now agreed that its principal role is to be a regulator; that is the unique role that it can fulfil. However, what do we want it to regulate—simply charity law, compliance with charity law, or the increasingly individual charities? In certain parts of government, I think that there is a view that we should have a de minimis regulator along the lines of the FCA, which simply regulates compliance. I do not think that is right. We have the most advanced, complex and vibrant voluntary sector in the world, and we need a regulator that is much more proactive about setting standards of good governance and trust. We need the Charity Commission to regulate within that framework.

On the matter of relationships with other organisations, I have always had a feeling that the commission is a somewhat distant and aloof organisation. In these times of straitened economics, the commission needs to be far more adept at developing good strategic relationships with other organisations. It ought to proactively signpost charities and the million trustees who use its services to go to other organisations for top-quality information and advice. It has always been reticent about doing that in the past.

The principal issue on which there could be a steer from government is the relationship between the commission and other regulators. The report into the Cup Trust has shown clearly that HMRC was at fault. From the beginning, it was clearly an issue of tax evasion and should have been dealt with primarily by HMRC, with some assistance from the Charity Commission on its areas of specialism. In future, that is what the commission should do with all regulators. The onus should be on other regulators, and the Charity Commission should be a specialist back-up point.

In the very little time remaining, I want to say one thing. The budget of the commission has been cut; we all hear about that endlessly. The Government should make one piece of investment: in the commission’s digital strategy. I am sad enough that I use the Charity Commission’s register all the time. It is incredibly clunky; you have to really know what you are looking for. In this day and age, it does not answer the strategic needs of anyone—of government or of the sector. The single most important thing that could be done to encourage public trust in charities—that is what this has all really got to be about—is to require any organisation that calls itself a charity to have the most simple of websites, on which it must have its annual report, its governing document, its latest accounts and its statement of activities. If the Charity Commission were in a position to actively promote digital transparency throughout the sector, far fewer problems would end up at its door. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, was absolutely right. There are 175,000 registered charities, and a greater number of very small organisations that call themselves charities but are not registered. The commission alone cannot police every one of them but, with the help of the Government, who are currently pursuing their own digital strategy, it can drive up standards of transparency and accountability. I hope that we will focus on that today.

13:10

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I must first declare an interest. Members of my family remain within the religious group which has been the subject of much controversy with the Charity Commission, namely the Exclusive Brethren. I thank my noble friend Lady Barker for securing this debate. It is clear that the future effectiveness of the Charity Commission will involve the investigation of charities such as this. This needs resources, and clearly £137 per charity is not sufficient. As one pays for the issue of court proceedings and to get a passport, I do not think that there is anything objectionable in the Charity Commission charging for the services it offers.

Under the new leadership of William Shawcross, I believe that the commission is more effective and a new day is dawning. In what may seem to colleagues like an Oscars speech, I thank him and Kenneth Dibble for their unique finding concerning the alleged group which I have mentioned. They found,

“on balance, that there were elements of detriment and harm which emanated from doctrine and practices of the Brethren and which had a negative impact on the wider community as well as individuals”.

The actual doctrines and harsh disciplinary practices were the issue this alleged church had to address. It was made to amend its trust deed, and will be reviewed in a year’s time to see if its behaviour has changed. This finding is an important acknowledgment of the mental, emotional and financial suffering of ex-members of this group, which is controlled from Australia by universal leader Bruce Hales. I thank ex-members of the group who bravely came to Parliament recently to tell their testimonies. The mental health implications were obvious to colleagues of living in a system where people are told, “We will do the thinking, you do the doing”. In this system people risk being separated from their family if they even own a phone from Carphone Warehouse, or go away to university. People work for a Brethren-owned company, so for some gaining their freedom meant losing their home and their job as well as members of their family, even their own children.

I previously called for a church-led inquiry, as I was aware of the wonderful pastoral support being given to ex-Brethren in many churches. However, I was naive. As my noble friend Lady Brinton and I stuck our heads above the parapet others ducked for cover, perhaps sensibly. Sadly, the Christian lobby fraternity have clearly brought this group under their umbrella, despite my repeated requests not to do so. I quote from the Evangelical Alliance in November 2012:

“This particular church has now become a test case for the 16,000 strong UK movement as a whole”.

In 2014, it was called a Brethren church by the Christian Institute. Neither of those groups has thanked the Charity Commission for exposing the victims’ stories, nor made them available for their many supporters to read. Nor are my speeches or those of my noble friend referenced. This does not reflect the Christians who support these groups, who I believe would give—even sacrificially—to help ex-members, particularly those who need legal fees to obtain contact with their children who remain in the group. Christians must always condemn groups such as this one, where there are allegations of racism, persecution of homosexuals and separation of families. They must never reserve criticism only for the Charity Commission’s assessment of the public benefit test.

However, a more effective Charity Commission will mean more work for the Government and for HMRC. The following issues arise from this effective investigation. Are the Government really content with a public benefit law which allows a group causing such detriment and harm to be a charity? Is this decision being considered by the Department for Communities and Local Government for its cohesion implications? Just imagine if there were allegations that imams dealt out such sanctions if their people did not purchase their mobile phone from a company whose directors were also the mosque committee, so that their calls could be monitored. I have seen such technology. Is evidence being sought by the Department of Health around the mental health implications for members of such a group?

Most chilling of all, this group runs its own schools. It does not recruit: you are born and educated into it. If this group is not a church—which I maintain strongly that it is not—then its nature is a matter of serious concern. As a friend of the Charity Commission, I believe that it needs to show that its annual review has teeth. As the right honourable Bernard Jenkin, chair of the Public Administration Select Committee, asked of Mr Shawcross, the changes for this group should be not superficial but substantive.

This group’s leadership is scary and intimidating. It is only because I am immune from legal proceedings in Parliament that these matters can be stated. This privilege of Parliament has been won by my predecessors, and I and the victims of this group could not be more grateful for it.

13:15

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Group on Civil Society and Volunteering.

I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate. She will not be surprised to see that the usual suspects are gathered here today—that is, those noble Lords with an interest in and commitment to the charitable sector. For most of us it is a commitment of many years’ standing. I certainly remember the Deakin review extremely well.

None of us can therefore deny that the way in which the Charity Commission has been operating in recent times has been a cause for concern. The series of reports mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, make dismal reading. The PAC report of 5 February this year concludes in no uncertain terms that the commission continues to perform poorly and is failing to regulate charities effectively. The reasons for this have been well rehearsed. It has been too slow; too reactive rather than proactive; too narrow and legalistic in its approach to regulation; and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, clearly stated, there has been confusion about its primary purpose. Is it there to support the voluntary sector or to protect the public interest?

In addition there has been a constant problem with resources. Is the commission being asked to do too much with too little? Undoubtedly the commission, like much of the charitable sector, has taken a severe financial hit in recent times and has had to reduce staff drastically.

Much controversy has surrounded the commission, not helped perhaps by changes of personnel at the top. The appointment of a new chief executive—which I understand will shortly be announced—will be of the utmost importance. It is vital that this person has the skills and experience to enable the commission to fulfil its important role, to be clear about its mission and to provide authoritative leadership, especially in developing strategic alliances.

It is certain that, in spite of the controversy, there is universal agreement within the sector that it needs an independent and effective regulator which focuses entirely on charities. For example, trusts and foundations which give grants to other charities have to give due diligence, and the less the Charity Commission does the more the trusts and foundations have to do. So there may be duplicated effort using donated money rather than the public money which enables the Charity Commission to do this kind of due diligence on which trusts and foundations and others who give money were habitually able to rely. It is vital that we continue with that.

Therefore the Charity Commission’s move to take firmer, swifter action with the few charities which offend—we should remember that, although there have been serious cases, few charities offend—and its desire to enhance further its legal powers has met with nothing but support from the charitable sector. Better use of data, as the noble Baroness reminded us, and closer working with HMRC are also moves in the right direction. The Government would be well advised to banish all thoughts of merger with HMRC, should they have such thoughts, which I hope they have not. If the Charity Commission continues with its programme of reform and delivers the changes it is promising, the Government must do their part to ensure that they provide realistic funding for this important—indeed vital—organisation.

13:19

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Barker on securing this important debate. I welcome the fact that the Charity Commission is taking a more detailed look at charities’ activities, specifically under the public benefit rule, and challenging what in the past was almost a rubber-stamp approval for charitable status.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has already outlined the reason for the commission’s investigation into the Preston Down Trust but I want to add two or three more comments. For those who do not know, the Exclusive Brethren withdraws as much as it can from contact with the wider world. Its members will not eat or drink with worldlies, as they call us. They will not use TV, radio and computers that have not been approved by their Australian leaders, and its young people are banned from using Facebook. Their school books are heavily censored, with pages ripped out or stapled together.

The formal decision from the commission lists some of the evidence that it received from people who were members of the Exclusive Brethren, but who have left or been asked to leave—withdrawn or “cast out” in their parlance. Paragraph 89 of the decision says that it took evidence on:

“the impact of the doctrines and practices on those who leave PBCC; the exclusory effect on family life and relationships when members leave as a result of complete severing of ties; … absence of assistance and support to those who leave, including vulnerable children and young people; those who leave are ostracised and consequently treated differently from other members of the public; … loss of inheritance where relatives remain and leave their property to the Brethren which is encouraged; inability to participate in funeral arrangements and services of Brethren relatives; threats of legal action against those who speak out against the Brethren; and fear and anxiety of repercussions for themselves and family members who remain in the Brethren”.

I have met a number of people who have had to leave the Brethren because they are homosexual. One notable case, reported by the BBC in 2011, is that of Dario Silcock, who was bullied by the elders and the children in his church because he and they suspected that he was gay. He was asked to repent, as there is zero tolerance of homosexuality in the Brethren, and the teacher from whom he sought support and advice was suspended by the Brethren school. He said to the BBC then, aged 18, “I miss my family, but I have never been happier”.

Last year, a number of Parliamentarians heard evidence from another former member, who was abused by an elder when he was in his teens. He followed the advice that I think we hope all young people in his position would follow: he went to talk to another elder about the abuse. To his consternation, he was ordered on to his knees to ask God for repentance. As far as the EB was concerned, the rape was irrelevant. Because he had taken part in a homosexual act, he was guilty. It was not surprising that he left. He too has been allowed no contact with his family since he left.

I raise these two accounts with noble Lords because I have hope for these men and many others. The Charity Commission’s decision has made it clear in paragraph 98 that, if the Brethren does not comply with its undertakings to treat former members more fairly and differently from the list of its actions I cited earlier, the commission will review its charitable status again. The current public debate on disbelief, not just looking at public benefit, is very important and one reason why I am more positive than others that the new and more thorough approach of the commission will provide some real benefit.

However, what I really pray for is a change in culture where people who have left the Exclusive Brethren are allowed to have contact with their families with no pressure on them. If the Charity Commission can have achieved this, it will have made significant progress, but I am not holding my breath.

13:23

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I will not reiterate what has already been said about the levels of underfunding of the Charity Commission. There is great concern that the vital work that is going on needs proper support if we are going to develop this very important sector in our country. A number of noble Lords have spoken about the need for proper resourcing.

I want to comment briefly on the group of charities that are described by the Charity Commission as excepted charities. These include not just churches and chapels but charities that provide premises for some types of schools and Scout and Guide groups, and charitable service funds of the Armed Forces. It is very significant and helpful that Her Majesty’s Government have decided to extend exception from registration for a further seven years beyond 31 March 2014. It is unclear whether there are any plans afoot for an orderly transition to registration in the lead-up to 2021. Of course, to some extent inflation will reduce the number of excepted organisations and other charities as they reach that £100,000 registration threshold, but unless some queuing system is agreed in advance, at the end of the seven-year extension there is a real possibility of a logjam.

That is just one of the reasons why we need to ensure proper funding. The commission has the responsibility to offer, as well as regulation—which clearly is needed and for which we are very grateful—advice and support. There has been a question about the focus of the work. Certainly, my experience of being involved with many charities is that with increasing legislation and, indeed, litigation, many people are deeply worried about taking on trusteeships. If we are going to see this grow, surely we need to ensure that we have proper, adequate support.

Who do we turn to, from a charitable point of view, if we want authoritative advice? Expecting umbrella organisations such as the NCVO to replace the commission is simply unrealistic. None of them has sufficient clout to do the job. In my own sphere of work, the Churches’ Legislation Advisory Service tries very hard to provide sound advice to member churches but it can never have the detailed expertise and knowledge of the commission. In short, if we are to have proper regulation and guidance, it really is important that we get proper resourcing behind it.

Many of your Lordships will have been involved in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, and will be acutely aware of the concerns that were expressed by a number of churches about its provisions on non-partisan lobbying, particularly about churches organising hustings at election time. The church’s provision of venues plays a vital role in the democratic process. At each general election for many years now, my own cathedral in St Albans has hosted hustings. It is by far the largest hustings around: without exception, all the candidates turn up and a very large number of people gather for the event. Many people who take part say it is one of the few times that they come to a hustings in the traditional sense, where there is real cut and thrust and argument and so on. We are convinced that this is a major contribution to political involvement at a time when there is a worrying disengagement by many voters.

The Electoral Commission and Charity Commission are both working on guidance for charities on the effect the Act will have on their activities. I hope that they are being encouraged to speak to one another as they develop those guidelines. Specifically, it would be helpful if the Minister could reassure the church that the Act will not prevent it from providing hustings in the run-up to the general election in 2015.

13:28

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a trustee of four different charities, ranging from Deaf Education to the British Lung Foundation, all of which are to be found in the register, and I have been a charity trustee for 30 years.

The Public Accounts Committee concluded that:

“The Charity Commission has not regulated the charity sector effectively”,

but I think the committee’s outlook is too bleak. There is a new team leading the Charity Commission now, with William Shawcross taking over from the “Quango Queen”.

[Noble Lords]

Outrageous!

[Lord Borwick]

The search is under way for a new chief executive as well. It takes a long time to change the ethos of an organisation, to make a bureaucratic elephant tap-dance, or even to make the elephant head in the right direction at any speed. I have made a change in the private sector, changing an inefficient, lazy monopoly supplier into a tiger, but it took a long time and I got support, not criticism, from stakeholders. I am not sure that everything done so far has been perfect. Shawcross’s comments on the pay of CEOs of charities could have been better.

The charity sector has changed, moving from the saintly amateur to the professional. The commission has to change from working on the chief assumption that all players in the sector are honest gentlemen to the reality that, hidden among those saints, are occasional sharks. All regulators rely in part on the integrity of their subjects, and integrity is harder to find now than 20 years ago. We should compare the Charity Commission’s failures in spotting the Cup Trust as a cracked vessel with a similar failure—that of the Bank of England and the FSA to spot the “crystal Methodist” as a bad banker. After all, some politicians could not even tell there was a problem with the affiliates of a charity, even when they were employed as full-time legal officers. Is not the percentage of imprisoned politicians from another place greater than the percentage of bent charities?

I think there is another, hugely important issue that the commission must combat with time and resources. That is taxpayer-funded political campaigning. The problem starts with the Government. Over the past few decades, they have given state support to an increasing number of charities. The intention might be good, but the result is not.

Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs has carried out extensive work on this issue. His research has shown that some groups are being set up to champion certain pieces of legislation under the guise of a charity pursuing its objectives. He rightly calls such groups “sock puppets”. They prey on the good nature and trust of the British public because government departments and councils are camouflaging themselves as benefactors. Snowdon found that a shocking 27,000 charities are dependent on the Government—or, more accurately, on taxpayers—for more than 75% of their income. That has to have a big impact on the independence of charities and their ability to criticise the Government of the day.

What shall we do to tackle this evil? A lot of the responsibility for fixing the problem lies with the Government, not with the Charity Commission. Any statutory funding should be restricted and should not be used to lobby politicians or engage in other political activity. These charities should also be subject to freedom of information legislation. Much effort was needed to put together the Transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration Act. Perhaps now we need a new “lobbying by sock puppets” Act to deal with this issue.

13:32

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Barker for this debate. It is sad that it is so short. The issues that it seeks to cover are immense and deep, so I am going to have to be as selective as everyone else. I declare my interests, which are in the register: I have been a charity lawyer for 40 years, and I suppose I have had as many dealings with the Charity Commission in that time as anyone alive. I want to come to their aid, though it has many shortcomings. I have one point, which I know is a dangerous one to make but it is at the root of those shortcomings, of which I have been the victim over the years: it is grossly under-resourced.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made that point, as did the NAO. It is fruitless for any of us to go on saying, “They must do this better,” “They must do that better,” “There must be better inquiries, more inquiries, more of this and more of that”. In its report, the NAO says that in the past six years the commission’s income has declined by 40% in real terms. None the less—like everyone else—it makes a list of recommendations, more than half of which require greater resources of men and women. The lawyers in the Charity Commission oversee more than 330,000 charities. Half of those are registered, but more than half are below the levels for registration. They all have to be registered. They are ruled, governed and led by volunteers. I hope I do not misconstrue what the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, but the charity sector is essentially and at its heart a volunteer movement. That is its ethos. That is why altruism is still the central legal purpose of charity. You cannot conceivably do what it is asked to do.

As I was saying, the NAO made a huge number of recommendations, over half of which need extra resources. The legal department, where I was, has only 10 to 12 lawyers. My firm, one firm of solicitors, has over 10 to 12 charity lawyers. What sort of farce is that? They do their best and on the whole they are jolly good, but they are pathetically underpaid. Any good lawyer can go out of the Charity Commission any day of any week and get paid two to five times more than they are paid at the commission. How can we ensure that it can therefore recruit the people that it needs, let alone extra people, to do the job, which—I could not agree more—is so important?

I end by emphasising how important all this is, and that the funds that I am talking about—the actual resources—are but a drop in the bucket compared with what the voluntary and charity sector does. Frankly, without the charity sector, this country would be in a profound mess; it is in enough of a mess. We live now according to money, sex and celebrity. The charity sector is wonderful counterbalance to the phenomenal materialism that engulfs us now, with 1 million unpaid trustees. Think of that: over half the adult population giving of their time willingly and lovingly in a country that is parched of those characteristics. I therefore, like my noble friend Lady Barker, do not emphasise the shortcomings of the commission. Of course it has them—I could give your Lordships 10 things that it could do. However, it must have more support and help. Without those, it is a load of hot air.

13:36

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the question I am posing and attempting to answer in this debate is, “Are there lessons for the Charity Commission from the parallel activities for the regulation of non-profit housing associations, most of which are charities?”. The Homes and Communities Agency regulates so-called registered providers and nearly three-quarters of these are “exempt charities”, operating outside the Charity Commission’s regulatory powers

Two aspects of the arrangements for the voluntary housing sector seem worth considering for the wider charity sector. First, would it help to copy the model of having an ombudsman to resolve complaints from service users? Ombudsman services cover many industries—financial services, telecoms, electricity and water companies, and legal services—as well, of course, as most public services. However, only a minority of charities, like the charitable housing associations, are covered, because they come under a specialist ombudsman service. Just as the Housing Ombudsman takes a load off the shoulders of the HCA, I suggest that a charities ombudsman could relieve pressure on the Charity Commission by sorting out the everyday service disputes that can prove so arduous and time-consuming.

I declare my interest, at one remove, as chair of the council of the Property Ombudsman, which deals with private sector estate agents and managing and letting agents. This experience has led me to the view that ombudsman services—independent redress schemes, free to the consumer and service user—can be very valuable. An ombudsman has teeth in being able to make awards—usually financial compensation—when a complaint is upheld, in being able to publicise bad behaviour and, where appropriate, in passing on its findings to the regulator, in this case to the Charity Commission. Let us have a charities ombudsman.

My second proposition relates to the concept of co-regulation, which, I feel, the Homes and Communities Agency is taking to a more refined level than the Charity Commission. The co-regulation approach brings together the regulator and the regulated. It encourages the organisation that encounters a problem, which may be governance-related, to take it to its regulator as early as possible and to discuss a mutually acceptable way forward. In place of hoping that the regulator will never find out about the problematic issue, the board—the trustees—shares the burden and gets the advice of the regulator.

This is not a mechanism for discovering criminal intent or gross misconduct but, for those cases where things have gone wrong and the trustees are well intended, co-regulation can sort out difficulties in an atmosphere of mutual trust, not defensiveness and hostility. It requires the regulator to assist the organisation to take steps to put things right and to keep in close contact. This contrasts with the regulator standing back and not coming down from on high in a heavy-handed manner. Direct intervention need happen only in extreme cases. I believe that the Charity Commission is heading in this direction and, from experience of seeing how co-regulation can work, I commend an acceleration of that process. If the way for the Charity Commission to increase its effectiveness is by taking forward the two suggestions I am making here, perhaps by raising some part of the funding from an annual levy on the charities themselves, that might be a price worth paying for a better service for charity service users and for the charities themselves.

13:40

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for the debate on regulating what is one of society’s most valuable assets, charities, which are often described as,

“the very bedrock of our civil society”.

There are nearly 1 million trustees of charities, and I reckon that around 700 of them are in your Lordships’ House. I have set up and run various charities and I remain a trustee of two.

The regulator’s role in maintaining trust in this sector is key but, as we have heard, today’s debate comes after the NAO and PAC inquiries, the latter saying that the commission fails,

“to regulate charities effectively. The Commission is a reactive rather than proactive regulator, and has yet to use its powers properly … we are not convinced it has the leadership capability to tackle its significant failings and transform its culture”.

It goes on to say that the commission has “no coherent strategy” and that it is “buffeted by external events”. It is,

“too willing to accept what charities tell it”,

and has failed to tackle “poor performance” and to “implement recommendations”. Indeed, the Charity Commission itself has admitted that it was,

“weakest in identifying … deliberate wrongdoing”.

Furthermore, when asked whether it had,

“sufficient resources to effectively regulate the sector”,

Mr Younger’s answer was,

“very close to being no”.

So, should the commission and the Government begin to rethink what has become a near impossible job and consider even the issue, which has just been raised, of a levy on charities? The commission thinks that anyone who feels like it should be able to establish a charity. It gets 27 applications a day, but we have heard nothing about how those 7,000 concerns a year perform or whether all their trustees, who are often untried and untested, are actually capable of running a charity, given that,

“charity law is hard … especially … for trustees setting up small charities”,

and that, to quote the commission,

“in the overwhelming majority of cases where trustees are getting it wrong”,

it is “through ignorance” that sometimes seems to be “bordering on negligence”. Given this, why of all things did the chair of the commission promise to tackle “the politicisation of charities” or consider that the lobbying Act was broadly satisfactory to the sector, despite its “gagging” effect and despite the sector’s own view?

The Charity Commission’s report on investigations shows that fraud is one of the most common problems. Indeed, of its completed investigations, 39 were about fraud, accounting and crime, 33 were about trustee issues and only one was about political activities. Is there another agenda here, as I fear we have heard something of today?

We welcome many of the suggested new powers in the government consultation, especially broadening the range of offences for which trustees can be disqualified, but focusing on powers misses the point. The problem stems from being overly cautious, not from a lack of legal powers. Some of those suggested may go too far, such as giving the commission the pre-emptive power to block charities from holding certain events or inviting particular speakers. Preventing fraud, mismanagement, abuse and the funding of terrorism should be the priority, not gagging legitimate activities.

The Charity Commission has made progress. However, there is more to make, and the Government have a role in terms of thinking whether they are asking this small organisation to do far too much on far too little money.

13:45

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate. Given how important the charities sector is for the country, holding regular debates on aspects of charities law and charities regulation seems to be one role that the second Chamber might usefully consider as particularly valuable for itself. These are immensely complex issues, as we all know. We have inherited charities law as developed over the past 400 years, and it continues to adapt. I have spent some time looking at public benefit issues and think I am persuaded that if we were to define “public benefit” now, in statute form, we would find ourselves having even more legal cases about the edges of public benefit. I am therefore persuaded that allowing it to evolve through case law is very important, in particular, for those elements of charities which are concerned with religion. For the first 300 years of charities law, it was almost entirely concerned with charities associated with the Church of England or, after some time, with a number of non-conformist churches. That eventually included a small number of Jewish charities and, as we all know, it now extends over a much wider area, in which the questions of what religion and belief are have come to be very much part of where we all are.

I will take on the question of the Preston Down Trust case, which went before the tribunal. One of the things I think I have learnt is that using the charities tribunal, which was intended to save money and time, has now become a very expensive legal activity. It was felt more useful therefore to negotiate. We have negotiated an agreement which will be reviewed after a year and we will see where we are then. The noble Baroness is well aware of the intensive lobbying that there was on both sides, including by a number of MPs from within her own party—not always, I think, necessarily wisely. However, this is now in train, it will be continued, and a review will take place.

To come back to where my noble friend Lady Barker started, this is an important sector which has a gross income of £61 billion, although I suspect that contains a certain amount of double counting because some charities give money to other charities. It includes more than 160,000 different charities, although 1,000 are the most important and account for the largest amount of spending. As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, the sector has become much more professional, and in certain ways some of the larger charities have become a good deal more ruthless, which is part of what I discovered in the extensive consultation I had with large charities over the transparency of lobbying Bill. It is a much more professional sector than it was. Reading through the evidence given to the PAC and others shows that the Charity Commission has been going through a change of culture from one in which you automatically assume that almost everyone in this sector is full of good will and altruism and that the role of the Charity Commission is to be helpful and offer advice, to one in which we recognise that a small number of charities, whether small or large, test the limits or are involved in actual fraud, and that the Charity Commission has therefore got to be a less trusting regulator. Questions have been raised by a number of noble Lords about whether it can do that and whether its resources are too small. Reading through the various reports and the evidence given, it is quite clear to me that if the new Charity Commission board and chief executive can make a strong and positive case for additional resources, the Government will look at it very carefully. Whether some element of charging for larger charities becomes part of that larger package may be for a further debate on another occasion, but we recognise that resources are now extremely stretched and that the clear regulation we need requires to be strengthened.

Digital transition is an important part of this, as the noble Baroness said. The Government have provided a further £500,000 of capital spending to the Charity Commission to assist in moving towards an easier digital openness strategy. As a trustee of a couple of musical education charities, I agree strongly with the noble Baroness that simple provision in digital form of accounts, declaration of public benefit and all the things that one needs to do, as well as advice to trustees, is exactly what one needs. When I went around the Charity Commission’s website last week looking for a simple definition of public benefit, it was not as easy to find as I had hoped and expected, so there are improvements to be made.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I reassure the Minister that he has not been deficient in his trawl of the website: it is just that there is no simple definition of public benefit. It is intrinsically complex.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That is one of the reasons why charity lawyers can make such a good living.

The Cup Trust, into which I have looked in detail, was raised. As has been said, clearly that was fundamentally a tax avoidance scheme. The Charity Commission decided that it could not take up the case. I am assured that HMRC has not paid out any money on the tax avoidance scheme. It issued guidance about such schemes at an early stage in the process and is now resisting paying the gift aid refunds that the scheme was set up to gain.

On the transparency of lobbying Act, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on a number of issues, but I also disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I have learned a great deal about the shift in a number of big charities towards campaigning, but campaigning has always been part of what charities have done. One of the most impressive discussions I had was with the dementia trust, which has managed by campaigning to raise public awareness of the importance of the issue—to raise the quality of understanding of an extremely important public issue. That is entirely legitimate and desirable in the public debate. The idea that charities should not have a campaigning dimension is something that I hope we all accept is not appropriate. Let me reassure the right reverend Prelate that the Act in no way affects hustings in the run-up to the 2015 election. A great deal of exaggerated concern was put out during the passage of the then Bill about what it might do. If you read CC9—I must have read it 15 times in the last year—it is entirely clear that it is not affected by that Act, and that churches will continue in their extremely valuable role in public education in this respect.

I hope that I have now answered a number of the issues raised. Why not charge charities? The question is out in the open. Needless to say, charities do not respond with much enthusiasm to that suggestion. The Government are looking at the question of how we provide the resources needed for regulation. I have also discussed public benefit. We all have a concept of public benefit. Happily, no one today has mentioned public schools—that is out there as well. Public benefit can be provided in a range of different ways. Case by case, you look at the sort of public benefit being provided, but it has to be public. The noble Baroness will know that, in religious cases, those religious bodies that do not open some of their facilities to a broader public and do not provide wider benefit to a broader public are therefore not accepted as charities.

On the question of executive remuneration, the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said that he regretted that the new chairman of the Charity Commission had offered some criticism. Charities are in the public sector and in the public view, so they need the respect of their members and people who give money. During the consultation on the transparency of lobbying Bill, I remember being told by representatives of a large charity that it is important that the charity should maintain its reputation because the people who give small sums of money need to know that it has that reputation. That is part of the reason why charities need to be aware of the dangers of becoming overly professional and corporate. Some of our big charities have edged a little far in that direction.

On the question of co-regulation, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, the Charity Commission now has a clear partnership strategy and works with a number of partners. Incidentally, we are aware of the question of accepted charities and how to move towards a different situation with them without swamping the Charity Commission.

The question of a charities ombudsman has also been discussed. The Government are not yet convinced that the case has been made. The Charity Commission does its best to respond to queries from charities. Part of the reason why the Charity Commission has been swamped in recent years is because many charities throw a lot of queries for advice at it which get in the way of its compliance activity.

I hope that I have answered most of the points raised. I encourage the noble Baroness and other noble Lords to return to this question regularly. This is a large and important part of our social fabric and economy, and we need to be sure that it continues to command the confidence and respect of the public, politicians, government and financial accountants.

13:56

Sitting suspended.

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

Thursday 27th February 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

14:00

Asked by

[Baroness Deech]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their priorities during their chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2014.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, this morning Chancellor Merkel referred to the events of the Second World War as a break with civilisation and declared that she bowed her head to the victims. She referred to the hand of forgiveness and reconciliation stretched out by European nations to Germany. In this spirit I address the question of Holocaust remembrance 75 years after the start of the war.

Few countries in the world have as noble a record as the UK when it comes to Holocaust remembrance. This is the month in which the Government assume the chair of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which is very fitting. The Government are to be congratulated on the recent establishment of the Holocaust Commission, on legislating for the return of stolen art, including Holocaust education in the national curriculum and appointing a special envoy for post-Holocaust issues. They have also housed the Holocaust Archives at the Wiener Library in London and participated in the online publication of the global catalogue of looted art. For all this, I and thousands of others are immensely grateful.

However, in this special year for the UK I have to tell the Minister that survivors need action as well as memorials. They need action to combat the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe and they need help to reclaim their cultural heritage. The Holocaust was not only genocide; it was the greatest theft in history. The Nazis, and in some countries the communists, took not just people’s lives but their religious heritage, their property, their professions and their assets.

Most people are aware of the issue of looted art, most recently through the discovery of a hoard of art in a Munich apartment. But it is not just art. Before the war, Poland was home to more than 3 million Jewish citizens, 90% of whom were killed and their properties occupied by others. There are thousands of properties in plain sight—houses, synagogues and factories—that have not been returned to the survivors and their heirs, of a value that dwarfs the art.

But the price is not all. As Chancellor Merkel said, Europe is bound together by respect for the rule of law. Yet there is one big wound on the body of Europe that must be tended to, otherwise it will fester for ever. Poland is a success story of modern Europe but more than two decades after it became a democracy, the failure to make restitution still blights it. An entire people—killed or forced out—was dispossessed. Poland’s success is built in part on the property of others. This is a property issue like no other. The stolen homes stand for the remembrance and recognition of the history of the Jewish population of Europe and the contribution of Jewish people to the culture and businesses of the countries they once lived in. Museums and tourism to the sites of former concentration camps do not begin to restore that memory. Survivors living in poverty may well ask why Governments contribute to the preservation of the Auschwitz site but not to the relief of their situation. The claims of the survivors need attention to demonstrate that Europe was not made lawless by the atrocities of the Second World War but upholds the law.

Poland is isolated as the only European country not to have enacted comprehensive legislation and settle the claims; indeed, it has retained communist nationalisation laws despite urging by international organisations and, most recently, by US Vice-President Biden. Many survivors live in poverty while their property is inhabited by the now free and democratic citizens of their former country of residence. The fact that Poland was a victim country itself does not remove the obligation to restore stolen property from which its citizens continue to benefit. But ultimately, it is not just about art or property; it is about recapturing people’s history. The art that hung on their walls and the houses where they lived are part of the legacy. If we allow the theft of an entire generation of a people’s culture, it is as if they had never existed. That is why the achievement of restitution must be the Government’s priority this year.

In making this a priority, the Government will be fulfilling their obligations under the terrorism declaration and guidelines of 2009 and 2012. The declaration was signed by 47 countries and called for support for the welfare of 500,000 Holocaust survivors and restitution of wrongfully seized property. This was the culmination of many post-war international conferences on this issue. However, progress is slow in central and eastern Europe, for example Romania. The greatest failure is Poland. There are about 90,000 surviving claimants to property of whom the majority are non-Jewish. On at least 13 occasions, Poland has drafted legislation and then shelved it. It puts every obstacle in the way of claimants in its own courts and makes unrealistic demands of proof, given that those who were killed were unlikely to have left title deeds behind. Its Government are acting in rejection of Council of Europe, US Congress and European Parliament resolutions, in contravention of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and of hopes held out prior to it entering the European Union. There are survivors here listening to us as we speak and they would say that their experience of claiming and being rejected has led them to believe that Poland is waiting for all the survivors to die out. They do not want total compensation. They do not want the eviction of present inhabitants, but a restitution and reconciliation commission to be set up by Poland modelled on the one that worked well in Austria. Such a commission could distribute a small percentage of the lost value from a fund donated by the Polish Government, with realistic requirements of proof carried out expeditiously.

This is nothing new. In 2001, Austria established a general settlement fund to resolve all remaining issues. The Government set up a three-person claims committee to receive claims using relaxed standards of proof—for example, the 1938 property records, witness statements and birth certificates. The Austrians put $210 million into the fund and more for insurance claims. Claimants no longer had to take legal action at their own cost. The committee dealt with 20,000 claims relating to 240,000 individuals before closing its work. Bulgaria had a good scheme, utilising government bonds and settled private claims.

This year, Holocaust remembrance needs to be refreshed and remodelled for future generations. There are already countless memorials around the world. There is a veritable tourist industry in trips to the sites of former concentration camps. In this country we have three Holocaust museums, memorial days and sophisticated education programmes. There is much to be gained by viewing “Schindler’s List” and reading The Hare with Amber Eyes and The Diary of Anne Frank, but these efforts are not an excuse for not taking the more difficult actions that survivors need. Moreover, all the conferences and education have failed signally to hold back the resurgence of anti-Semitism that we now see on the continent of Europe: the Islamist attacks on French Jews; the rise of Jobbik in Hungary and Golden Dawn in Greece; the marches in Lithuania; the resurrection of the blood libel; the antics of footballers and Dieudonné; and Holocaust denial and sales of the forged text, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Although the number of incidents reported by the Community Security Trust is down a little this year, it has only returned to the levels of 10 years ago and the totals cannot take account of the anti-Semitism so evident on social media.

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights reported on Jewish experiences of anti-Semitism in eight European nations in 2013: 76% said that there had been a deterioration in the past five years and 21% had experienced an incident. I suggest to the Government that we need a vigorous search for, and return of, looted art, and use of the remedies that already exist in law to stamp on the anti-Semitic actions and words that are suffered every day. As chair, they should call on Poland and other countries to honour their commitment to the democratic principle of property rights. There is a case for the creation of a European commissioner for post-Holocaust issues modelled on Sir Andrew Burns’s role, and a pan-European effort to provide some degree of remedy for the great injustices of the past so vividly remembered today in this Chamber.

14:10

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate. In congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing it, I pay tribute to the wonderful speech that she has just made. I also congratulate the Government on their chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

The Government take up the chair as anti-Semitism is again rising in many places, as we have just heard. It is often excused as criticism of Israel or support for animal welfare as, again, religious slaughter of animals is attacked—or, as we have recently seen in Denmark, banned altogether even though no Jewish religious slaughter is undertaken there. The latest is that circumcision will be brought into question. The sight of young men making the quenelle gesture in front of concentration camps and before the Western Wall in Jerusalem demonstrates how the message of the Holocaust risks being lost only 70 years after being revealed to the world after the Second World War. My simple message to the Government is this: please use every opportunity to remind people, especially young people born long after the Holocaust, of what happened, and to reiterate that anti-Semitism and any form of discrimination will not be tolerated.

Much is done now to educate and the UK was a founding member of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research. I pay particular tribute to Dr Stephen Smith, who leads the USC Shoah Foundation and the Holocaust Centre in Nottingham, which does wonderful work in educating our young people on this subject. This work, and the work of all those who teach and remind us of what occurred, is very important.

However, I fear for the future, for a time when there are no Holocaust survivors left to tell us what happened to them and when the Holocaust appears to many to be just another history lesson. Those who deny what happened are very clever. Even now there is distortion as to what occurred. Unbelievably and shockingly, there is blame on the victims; there is denial of the extent of what took place. Many records have been kept and the USC Shoah Foundation is dedicated to making audiovisual interviews with survivors so that their message is preserved for all time and never lost.

I have a fear that in the future—not in this century but beyond—those clever and despicable people who deny what occurred will dismiss these archives and the harrowing, grainy films of the camps and survivors as computer-generated films that were the product of clever film-makers. That is why educating every generation about the Holocaust and keeping it alive is so important. The creation of Holocaust Remembrance Day, taking place around the world on 27 January each year, has become a fitting reminder of what horrors took place within the lifespan of so many of us. Many people born long after the war are taught what happened and are shocked at the murderous acts that occurred as a barbarous attempt at racial cleansing.

I am therefore pleased that the Prime Minister has set up the Holocaust Commission to investigate what more can be done to ensure that Britain has a permanent and fitting memorial to the Holocaust, along with sufficient educational and research resources for future generations. I hope that the UK will use its chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance to lead all other nations in following our excellent example.

14:15

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this important debate. In recent years a huge amount of important work has been done, including by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust remains alive for generations which increasingly have no contact with anyone who lived through those terrible years, and it is important that it does so. However, memorialising can distance and weaken the power of example and of history, and the Holocaust should never become dusty and remote history. The lessons that it teaches us about the fragility of civilisation and the repeated need to shore up protections against savagery need to be taught and learnt generation after generation.

However, that is made harder when open wounds remain and, as we have heard, some still do. Restitution is important because, while nothing can undo the evil that was done, it at least recognises that evil was done. The material recovery of property, as the noble Baroness said so persuasively, matters less than that recognition, the recovery of that heritage and the bearing of witness to the fact that such evil was done. Without it, the wounds will always remain raw.

Of course, the restitution of assets is not the only way for such recognition to take place. The German artist Gunter Demnig, for example, has created the concept of “Stolpersteine”, small memorials positioned in places associated with the victims of Nazism. There are now hundreds of them in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and other European countries commemorating, among others, Jewish, Roma, homosexual and Christian victims of the Nazis.

However, the restitution of assets still has a crucial part to play in this process, not just for the victims of the Nazis, because the people of central and eastern Europe suffered from not only their tyranny but that of the communists. As the noble Baroness so compellingly argued—and I associate myself with everything she said—it is regrettable that Poland remains the only major European nation without legislation on the restitution of assets stolen during the Holocaust. As we have also heard, more needs to be done to make restitution effective in Romania, Hungary, Croatia and Latvia.

I hope that that will be a priority for our Government during their chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, but I hope that it will not be the only one. Of all the crimes against humanity, genocide occupies a unique place because of the way in which it seeks to exterminate entire peoples, their cultures, their society and everything that sustains them as a people. If remembrance of the Holocaust is to fulfil its purpose, we cannot be complacent about what has happened since the Holocaust took place. To the shame of the world, in the past 20 years we have been witness once again to what can only be described only as genocide. We have seen it in Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur and, for all the efforts now to secure accountability for those crimes, the civilised world failed to prevent these terrible crimes against humanity—crimes that have amounted, again, to genocide.

Moreover, we have seen brutal repression in Tibet and systematic attempts to eradicate Tibetan culture, and a savage onslaught on the Mayan people and their culture in Guatemala. No continent can take pride in its record in recent years in preventing these terrible atrocities that remind us that the Holocaust, for all its horrifyingly unique characteristics, was not the last of the ways in which civilisation can be overwhelmed by savagery—savagery that is rendered all the more terrible by the way in which the power of modern technology has been applied to its perpetration. History is harsh on those who, whatever they might say, in the end do little than more than wring their hands.

My father’s uncle and his family lived in a small town in what is now the Czech Republic. The family graves in the Jewish cemetery suggest that the family had lived there since before the 18th century. Ten thousand Jews lived in that town and the remaining population was about 70,000, most of whom were Sudeten Germans who had lived there since the 17th century. My uncle was a second father to my father. The town was a place of refuge for him from a difficult childhood in Vienna, and his first job was in the family firm there.

When the Nazis invaded, my grandmother, grandfather and father managed to escape to London. My grandmother’s brother refused to go with them; Jews had lived through hard times before, he thought, and this, too, would pass. He, and all his family, died in the death camps. After the war, the new state of Czechoslovakia expelled all the Sudeten Germans. In less than 10 years, that pretty little spa town had been entirely depopulated. Such tragedies happened over and over again to millions of people throughout central and eastern Europe. Such brutality still continues all over the world.

Debates such as this help to keep these memories fresh, and help us to remember why we need to remain vigilant—and, I hope, prompt us to do better in future in preventing such tragedies. For that reason, we all owe the noble Baroness a debt of gratitude for securing this debate today.

14:20

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for initiating this debate. My contribution is about testimony and how we can ensure that personal witness of the Holocaust in World War II, and other holocausts across the world since then, can be sustained, and what we in the UK can contribute to the international understanding of that in the coming year. Diplomacy is one of the great strengths of this country, and I hope that we will demonstrate clear, diplomatic leadership on the issue of restitution during our leadership year. A lot of work has been done, not least through the Terezin declaration in 2009. Some countries have been very responsive on restitution, but all should because it is never too late to do so.

The commemorative events planned over the next five years in relation to World War I demonstrate how, as a country, as communities and as human beings, we will ensure that the memories of the horrors of that war will never fade. Of course, so many UK families have memories passed down between generations. We have personal possessions, war memorials, public buildings paid for by subscription, monuments, films, plays, museums and wealth of personal testimony in books, many written shortly after the war. Of course, study of World War I is in the national curriculum. It is vital, now, that we clarify how we will maintain personal testimony of the Holocaust as well.

A lot has been done in developing resources in teaching and learning by the Holocaust Educational Trust since its creation in 1988. It has brought understanding to new generations, particularly since 1991, when Holocaust studies became part of the national curriculum at key stage 3. The trust tells us that when students listen to a survivor tell their personal story, they will often say that it is the most memorable lesson of the year. We should acknowledge that, within its capacity, the trust does an excellent job in teacher development, resourcing schools, colleges and universities, and in enabling visits to them by survivors and visits by students to Auschwitz. Its beacon school and regional ambassador programmes should be commended.

However, each new generation—which is, in practice, only a school’s generation—moves on, and another takes its place. That is why the work of the trust is a continuous process. This raises the question of how we can maintain personal witness and testimony in the years ahead. I have on several occasions led discussion at events to mark Holocaust Memorial Day. I have done so following a performance of “The Tin Ring”, a dramatisation of the autobiography of Zdenka Fantlova, a Holocaust survivor. The importance of this dramatisation is that it takes witness testimony and transfers it into a theatrical landscape where that testimony can live on the through the performer.

Testimony not communicated is not actually testimony. Sometimes drama can be the most effective way of communicating it. Sometimes that can be in writing, film, poetry, sculpture, art or painting, and sometimes it can be through another person, in particular through the testimony of the children of survivors. But my concern in relation to the debate is that we should use our leadership role this year to encourage the spread of good practice internationally on how to preserve personal testimony in the years ahead.

That is very important. There were two facts in the Library briefing that I think should be of concern to us. The first is that research shows that over 40% of teachers say that teaching the Holocaust is difficult in terms of managing cross-curricular co-operation, dealing with the emotional content, and responding to student misunderstandings or prejudice. I find that a very high percentage and it needs to be reduced. Secondly, the briefing refers to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s UK country report of October 2012, which states that in 2010-11, 13,276 people came before the UK courts charged with hate crimes, either for assault or verbal abuse, most of them racially motivated. More than 80% were convicted. Those figures tell us that we have to maintain our vigilance, and therefore memories, and that the testimony must not be allowed to fade.

14:26

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

My Lords, in 1985, Ronald Reagan’s visit to Bitburg became the subject of controversy. He had been visiting the graves of members of the SS and he decided that he would therefore also visit Bergen-Belsen. I remember hearing this on the radio in my bedroom and thinking that my mother would be interested because she was a survivor of Belsen. I went down to the kitchen where Mum was doing the washing up. “Mum”, I said, “Ronald Reagan is going to Belsen”. “So what?” she replied. “I’ve been”.

In my brief contribution to the debate that the wonderful as well as noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has secured, I want to make just three points. First, Holocaust remembrance is about to face its biggest challenge. We are going to need to think about how to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive when the distinct and irreplaceable voice of the survivors can be heard no more. I recall my mother preparing to speak at our synagogue and telling me for the first time that she and her sister had seen their family friends, Margot and Anne Frank, arrive in Belsen, and that her sister had recorded the event in a little pocket diary, the keeping of which was in itself a crime under the camp terms. She asked me if I thought the children would be interested. Yes, I thought they would be interested. My mum is still alive and continues to give talks about her experiences, but how do we replace that electrifying testimony? That is the job of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission to consider and should also be a priority during our chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

My second purpose in speaking is to lend support to the campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for compensation for Polish victims of the Holocaust. On the mantelpiece of my parents’ home is a clock embedded in a statue of Marshal Pilsudski, the leader of the Second Polish Republic. On the hour it plays Polish anthems, although generally we switch it off. My father was born in Lviv, which is now in Ukraine, but he was deeply proud of having been born a Pole. On his deathbed he told me that I should always honour the Polish people and never blame them for the crimes committed against them. So I do, and I am happy to do so. The revival of a free Polish nation and its emergence as a great European power is one of the happiest political events of my lifetime. It is why I can say with confidence and belief that I know that Poland will respond to the case the noble Baroness has made today.

Stalin’s Soviet Union stole my father’s house and the family business when it imprisoned and exiled my father’s family. In 2005, Poland made compensation available for this theft and we are pursuing the claim, although I have to confess that progress is slow. I am sure that as that claim has been recognised, so Poland will understand and respond to the noble Baroness. Poland is our friend, a friend of liberty and justice, and a great modern nation—and that is what great modern nations do. Helping our friends do the right thing should number among our priorities as chair of the alliance.

I have one other point to make. The alliance has 31 members and four observers. There are more than 190 countries in the world. Not to belong to this alliance and not to adhere to the Stockholm declaration is not just to show disrespect to those who died, it is the canary in the coal mine. It demonstrates that a country does not want to teach its children about hatred and genocide. We should make it our business to leave the alliance bigger than we found it.

In the 1920s my grandfather Alfred Wiener began collecting Nazi artefacts and literature. He believed in the power of truth to set people free. His library helped produce the evidence that tried the Nuremberg defendants and convicted Eichmann. It showed that truth will always have assailants and victims and will always retain enemies, but that truth can be victorious. Let us dedicate our chairmanship to that task.

14:30

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in seeking the Government’s priorities, which were so admirably set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I also want to draw attention to some of the victims of the Nazi regime who are less remembered. I refer to the Romani population of Europe, called by themselves Roma. I say this without wanting in any way to diminish the enormity of the Shoah, and the memory of those of my Polish grandfather’s family who died in Auschwitz. I should declare that I am chair of the Department for Education stakeholder group on the education of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children, and I am president of other relevant organisations which are shown in the register.

I hope the Minister will tell us how the Government’s new Holocaust Commission will deal with the Roma genocide. Can he tell us whether the Government have invited any UK Roma organisation to be affiliated with the International Alliance? One of the aims of its committee on the genocide of the Roma is to find ways of drawing Roma representatives into its working processes.

I do not think that the public as a whole are aware that a quarter of the Roma population of mainland Europe were killed by the Nazis, or cares much that the descendants of those who remained are still harried, persecuted and sometimes killed because of their race throughout the European mainland. There is a history of ignorance. Little regard was paid even by the Nazis to what they were doing. In contrast to the meticulous documentation and photographing of Jewish victims, few records were kept of the Roma. Some think that this is because, ironically enough, the Roma were more Aryan than most Germans, being descended from 15th-century migrants from the Punjab, which presented a problem to Nazi racial theorists.

While the fate of the Jewish victims of the concentration camps and the gas chambers was acknowledged soon after peace was signed, it took until 1982 for the German Government to recognise the Porrajmos or Roma annihilation. Even now, the word is probably unfamiliar to many noble Lords. It was not until 2012, after 20 years of campaigning by Roma groups, that a memorial to the Sinti and Roma people murdered under the Nazi regime was opened in Berlin. A campaign to place a memorial on the site of the Lety Roma concentration camp in the Czech Republic, where there is now an industrial pig farm, is so far unheeded.

However, as my noble friend said, it is not enough to commemorate. One Roma man I talked to said, “There is a Kristallnacht every weekend in the Czech Republic. Today it is nothing extraordinary to see patrols of extremists in T-shirts with slogans such as ‘Burn the Gypsies’”. Segregated education of Roma children en masse exists. Forced sterilisation exists. Inhuman and degrading treatment by police exists. All these are included in recent evidence from judgments in the European Court of Human Rights.

Another aim of the IHRA’s Roma genocide committee is to include Roma history and the contemporary situation of Roma in the school curriculum. Can the Minister tell us how far the Institute of Education and other bodies funded by Her Majesty’s Government to improve holocaust education have got with that?

The European Commission is well aware of the situation. Following the wretched deportation of hundreds of Roma people from France in 2010, it proposed in 2011 a Roma integration strategy which all member states of the EU signed up to. Yet the UK did not devise a specific strategy, saying in 2012 that they had got as far as setting up a national Roma contact point and a ministerial working group for the Gypsy and Traveller community with a list of commitments, although this had been set up for other purposes in 2010. Eventually, they were persuaded to include issues specific to the Roma people from the European mainland. We nevertheless hear insults and bigotry stereotyping all those of Romani and Traveller descent throughout the tabloid press and in casual conversation in a way that would not be tolerated for any other ethnic group. It is not unknown for parliamentarians and even Ministers to talk, for instance, about the proximity of Travellers having a “negative impact on business”. However, the negative impact is in the other direction: Travellers and those of Romani descent have by far the worst outcomes in mortality, general health and education of any ethnic group in the UK—although again, this is not often remarked on.

At a time when we still mourn the greatest fighter against race prejudice, Nelson Mandela, those of us who joined in the struggle against apartheid might well have cause to be ashamed of our continent. Europe, the nursery of so many ideas of freedom and justice, could do better. The UK, which is capable of great tolerance and humanity, could do better—save for the shining example of the Welsh Government, who have a comprehensive strategy. Our political leadership could do better. The leadership of the faith communities could do better in this country, although they have joined in an open letter to the Romanian Government. Nelson Mandela spoke of an,

“inalienable right to human dignity”—

what we also call human rights. We still need to make that a reality for our Gypsy, Traveller and Roma citizens. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

14:36

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this important debate, which is very timely given that the United Kingdom took over the chairing of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance just this week. It is also very timely in view of the address we heard this morning from Angela Merkel and the great grace and dignity with which she spoke of the awful events of the previous century.

The Foreign Secretary, my right honourable friend William Hague, in launching the chairing of this important alliance, noted that the United Kingdom was,

“one of the three founding members of the Alliance”,

and was “proud” once more to take up the leadership. He continued:

“We pledge to use our chairmanship to strengthen the efforts of the IHRA’s 31 member states”.

I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Finkelstein that that is not nearly enough members in an international community of some 180 or 190 states. We must see it as a major aim to extend that. The aims of the international body are of course, as the Foreign Secretary said,

“to promote education, remembrance and research”—

interlinked aims—

“to strengthen the moral commitment of our peoples, and the political commitment of our governments to ensure that future generations can understand the causes of the Holocaust and reflect on its consequences”.

The Foreign Secretary went on to say:

“Among our aims for 2014 will be to intensify work on the IHRA’s programme of academic, educational and commemorative research and to continue to extend the influence of the organisation beyond the confines of Europe and North America”.

I will return to that aim because it is an important one.

The Foreign Secretary’s stated aims reflect the Stockholm declaration, which is, in effect, the founding document of the organisation as an international body. It emphasises the importance of upholding the terrible truth of the Holocaust against those who deny it and of preserving the memory of the Holocaust. That is an extremely important aim and a touchstone in our understanding of the human capacity for good and evil—there was of course good in those times as well, that of people who sought to combat that dreadful evil. The declaration also recognises the responsibility of the international community to combat genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. I will come back to the genocide point, which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, also mentioned.

The three core themes, as I said, are interlinked and grants are awarded for promoting these aims. I was pleased to see, just this month, that some school pupils from Pembrokeshire—an area that I used to represent in the National Assembly for Wales—are going to Poland to visit Auschwitz. I appreciate the point about the danger of a sort of Holocaust tourism industry but it is important that the memory of these dreadful events is kept alive. On the basis that hearing is not like seeing, these visits are important and vital. Indeed, there is a very real danger if we do not do these things that Holocaust memory will die. There is evidence, as has been stated, of many schoolchildren and others not really understanding this. This will certainly be perpetuated as people die who have direct memory of those dreadful events.

I agree very much with what the noble Baroness said about property restitution. This is a vital part of our chairmanship of the international institution. Through the EU and other organisations, we need to put pressure on Poland and other states. Poland is perhaps the most obvious state that is not fulfilling its obligations, but there are others and they need to be pressurised during our chairmanship to live up to their international obligations. That is an important priority. As has been said, there is an urgent need for action because the longer this goes on, the more difficult it becomes and the fewer direct survivors there are.

Finally, I applaud the work of the alliance and its important aim of extending its influence beyond Europe and North America. The link between holocaust and genocide has been noted and is important. In the past year I visited the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, which is a deeply moving experience: you see people of all ages and racial and religious backgrounds in tears and hugging each other, which is a measure of its impact. I also visited the site of the killing fields just outside Phnom Penh, and there was a similar thing going on there. I remember as a younger man, probably in my teens, visiting the Anne Frank House, and these things are important. Restitution is also important. I associate myself with everything the noble Baroness said and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

14:41

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, like others, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this timely debate, and all noble Lords who have contributed to a knowledgeable, passionate and, in some respects, very personal debate.

There is no party-political divide on this issue. We stand as one in our commitment to the Stockholm declaration and its acknowledgment that:

“The Holocaust fundamentally challenged the foundations of civilisation”,

and we must commit to remembering the victims who perished, respect the survivors still with us and reaffirm humanity’s common aspiration for mutual understanding and justice.

In remembering, we must not just look back at the Holocaust as a now-distant historical event. We need to understand that genocide does not take place on its own. It is a process which can begin if discrimination, racism and hatred are not checked and prevented. If we have any doubt about that, we have the horrors of subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and now Darfur to remind us—as my noble friend Lord Wills said, to the shame of the world.

My noble friend Lady Whitaker reminded us that genocide under the Nazis was not confined to the Jewish community, although of course it is estimated that as many as 6 million Jews perished during the Second World War. The Romani population, those with physical and mental disabilities, and homosexuals were just some of those also persecuted. My noble friend made some telling points about the current plight of the Roma community in Europe and the discrimination it faces.

Therefore, remembrance of the Holocaust is not enough. This is why the Alliance was formed: to place political and social leaders’ support behind the need for Holocaust education and research, as well as remembrance. We helped its creation and we support it still. We welcome the pledge of its new chair, Sir Andrew Burns, to do more to ensure that future generations can understand the cause of the Holocaust and reflect on its consequences, and that its remit must include: support for the struggle against historical revisionism; the fight against Holocaust denial, in particular, and denigration; as well as the continuing fight against anti-Semitism and racial and religious prejudice.

Sir Andrew set out a number of issues in his new White Paper, including working processes and outreach. On the first, he is seized of the need to address the problems of the restricted financial resources of Governments and NGOs, as well as the need to make deliberations more accessible to less well resourced countries. Perhaps the Minister might say something about the resourcing of the alliance. Sir Andrew’s focus on plenaries being more content-driven and less administrative will doubtless ring true with many.

The White Paper notes that 13 of the Governments who were represented at the Stockholm forum in 2000 and endorsed the declaration are still not affiliated to the alliance. These need to be encouraged into the fold together with others. Further plans approved in 2010 to seek engagement with countries in north Africa had been put on hold but a tentative revival of this is suggested.

Another development outside the alliance, but sitting full square with its agenda, is the launch of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. This has been referred to by a number of noble Lords and I think the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, sits on the commission as an adviser. We have been pleased to participate in this on a cross-party basis. The Commission’s remit is to investigate what further measures should be taken to ensure Britain has a permanent and fitting memorial to the Holocaust along with sufficient educational and research resources for future generations. The Labour Party fully supports this. The point is made that we will not always have with us the survivors who have shared their stories. In Luton, at this year’s Holocaust memorial event, there was only one local survivor of those who arrived via Kindertransport.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, spoke with passion and justice about the need for restitution. When in government, we fully supported Holocaust asset restitution and we continue to see the issue of restitution as morally important as well as legally and culturally vital to honour. We endorse the Terezin principles and strongly encourage the Government to use diplomatic efforts to encourage other states to sign up to and honour what the declaration called for. There is particular concern about Poland, as we have heard today. Poland is yet to become a signatory to Terezin and we believe that it has a moral duty to sign up to the declaration and to honour it. As we have heard, survivors of the genocide need and deserve restitution.

A number of speakers have recognised that the Holocaust is unique. For the first time in history, industrial methods were used for the mass extermination of a whole people—the systematic and planned attempt to murder European Jewry. We have to do everything in our power to ensure it never happens again. Support for and working with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance will help to that end.

14:46

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking and paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for her contributions, not just to this debate but to the issue. This is an important debate for everyone, and we have seen and heard many personal and moving interventions from noble Lords today. The Holocaust will always have a universal meaning given its magnitude, the unprecedented and unparalleled suffering involved—as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said—and the scarring of humanity that took place. We are collectively committed to ensuring that all our children and future generations understand the events of the Holocaust and can reflect on its consequences. We also remember the many lives which were so cruelly cut short, and we support and sustain the survivors, who are all too few. We are truly honoured by the presence of some of them here today.

Our determination to remember the Holocaust and to learn the lessons of history domestically is reflected at the highest levels of the Government, as seen by the Prime Minister’s recent creation of the new cross-party, multifaith Holocaust Commission. Internationally, as noble Lords have acknowledged, the Foreign Secretary’s envoy for post-Holocaust issues, Sir Andrew Burns—who I am delighted has joined us in the Public Gallery today—draws together activity across government. Along with the executive secretary of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, Dr Kathrin Meyer, and with academic and non-government experts, Sir Andrew provides a clear British profile, presence and influence in this field.

I also pay tribute to all the Government’s partners in the UK delegation to the IHRA, which is drawn from academic and civil society organisations. Their activities in the field of post-Holocaust issues, and the best practice they are able to share with the IHRA’s other members, are the real heartbeat of the organisation. I particularly thank the brave survivors who every day actively visit schools and community groups to share their first-hand testimonies and help us in the ongoing struggle against Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. We are truly honoured by the presence of two such incredible people, brother and sister Ben Helfgott and Marla Tribich, who have joined us to listen to the debate today.

It is a great privilege for the UK to succeed Canada as chair of the IHRA. It is an honour for us to be at the helm of the foremost international body committed to promoting multinational co-operation in Holocaust education, remembrance and research. As several noble Lords pointed out, the alliance is now at a crossroads. From three initial country members, it has now grown to a sizeable regional alliance, encompassing 31 member states. I assure my noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Finkelstein that outreach to new countries is central to the IHRA and is a priority in our chairmanship. Yesterday, our special envoy for post-Holocaust issues briefed ambassadors from a number of interested countries, and we will continue those conversations with countries such as Australia, Albania, Morocco, El Salvador, Uruguay and Moldova. Other countries not yet part of the organisation but registering interest in it include Macedonia, Portugal and Turkey. These countries, of course, have their own Holocaust history and their own experiences to bring to the organisation.

A key part of the Holocaust issue is education, remembrance and research. The alliance has recently launched a multiyear work plan which will feature prominently in our chairmanship throughout this year. This includes addressing the deficit of knowledge of what took place outside of the death camps. The name of Auschwitz, for example, is horribly etched in our minds and sends shivers down our collective spines, and I assure my noble friend Lord Shipley that we recognise the importance of ensuring the impact of the Holocaust is not forgotten when the survivors are no longer with us. We pay tribute to the book The Tin Ring and to organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Association of Jewish Refugees, with which we work actively and imaginatively to ensure that survivors’ stories are kept alive and are shared through various innovative ways. We are actively looking to share our best practices with other members of the IHRA.

However, there are other sites across Europe where mass shootings took place which remain relatively unknown, and other people suffered, such as the Roma people mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We are taking forward the Roma integration strategy within our broader social inclusion and integration policies because we believe that is the best approach in a diverse and decentralised country such as the UK. Our approach is fully in line with that of countries we are working with at all levels.

The recent IHRA conference in Krakow on killing sites demonstrated that work still needs to be done to anchor Holocaust remembrance in our societies, and we are ensuring that Holocaust deniers do not get their way in any sense. We want to ensure that we curb these perverse and dangerous views. I assure my noble friend Lord Gold that I understand the sentiments he expressed. Tackling Holocaust denial or trivialisation is another priority of the organisation. This struggle is so important because it confronts a form of anti-Semitism which risks raising its head again, as we have already seen in parts of Europe. I assure my noble friend Lord Gold that we work actively through IHRA’s committee on anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial to ensure that the international community takes action to combat anti-Semitism wherever it is seen. That means that the IHRA is not just a legacy-based body looking backwards, but, more importantly, is tackling anti-Semitism now.

The UK has, from the beginning of the alliance, played a leading role in Holocaust education, remembrance and research. Our chairmanship, 15 years on from the initial political impetus that launched the body, and 70 years on from the end of the fighting, brings us back to the centre. We plan to use this year to build the necessary government support to reaffirm the original declaration from the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust including to,

“remember the victims who perished, respect the survivors still with us, and reaffirm humanity’s common aspiration for mutual understanding and justice”.

I hope that reassures my noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Finkelstein in this regard.

I assure the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord McKenzie, that we are not complacent about what has happened since the Holocaust in Rwanda, Cambodia, Srebrenica and Darfur. During the Balkans conflict, I visited Bosnia and Croatia. The situation was heart-wrenching. We work actively with international partners to ensure genocide prevention, including the concept of responsibility to protect, but there is always more we can do. That is why we are planning a reaffirmation of the Stockholm declaration, as I have already said. The IHRA will also need to address the future more directly and the “solemn responsibility” accepted at Stockholm to fight the evils of genocide, ethnic cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Bourne, and other noble Lords rightly drew attention to the issue of restitution. This is key to the concerns of the UK and the mandate of Sir Andrew Burns. The issue of restitution of property wrongfully seized by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945 is on the agenda. What has been described as the last injustice of the Holocaust has been played out recently in front of our media with the discovery of artworks stolen from victims of the Nazis and hoarded away or even displayed in museums. Sir Andrew continues to respond directly to the families of UK victims of the wrongdoing by actively lobbying other Governments to address Holocaust-era restitution issues. He and my ministerial colleagues have raised the issue of restitution of property with Ministers and officials from Poland, Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Estonia and Lithuania. We are also having discussions with the US and Israel, interested non-governmental organisations and relevant international organisations such as the European Shoah Legacy Institute in Prague.

I reassure all noble Lords that we will continue to raise our concerns about the lack of implementation of international declarations on restitution. Moreover, we will go on highlighting UK initiatives on restitution, including the Spoliation Advisory Panel, established in 2000 to advise claimants and institutions in the UK on claims for the return of works of art lost during the Nazi era, and will continue to push this through bodies such as the European Shoah Legacy Institute.

The record of other countries in addressing the issue of restitution of property, whether communal or private, is not all negative. For instance, there was the extraordinarily successful Austrian operation to compensate Holocaust survivors. We must also recognise that issues of legislation are matters for sovereign parliaments and that international agreements in this area of restitution are ultimately non-binding. We believe that there is more that countries can do to right this wrong. We will continue to put pressure on them and to play our part, bilaterally or collectively, through the offices and channels of the European Union.

I feel honoured and humbled to be responding to a debate of this magnitude and importance, not least by the presence of Holocaust survivors with us here this afternoon. I came across a prayer for Yom HaShoah which was found on a piece of paper in one of the concentration camps. It reads:

“Lord, remember not only the men of good will but also those of ill will. But do not remember all the suffering they have inflicted upon us. Remember, rather, the fruits we have borne thanks to the suffering: our comradeship, our loyalty, our humility, the courage, the generosity, the greatness of heart that have grown out of this. And when they come to judgment, let all the fruits we have borne be their forgiveness”.

The Prime Minister, on visiting Yad Vashem in Jerusalem in 2006, wrote:

“We owe it to those who died—and those who survived—to build a world in which this can never happen again”.

The pledge of our Prime Minister is the pledge of our Government. That is why Britain will remember. That is why Britain will never stand by. That is why I say to everyone present, both domestically and internationally, the past will never die, and its valuable lessons will not be forgotten as we build our future and our tomorrow for the benefit not just of ourselves but of generations to come.

14:58

Sitting suspended.

Counterterrorism Practices

Thursday 27th February 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Hylton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of counterterrorism practices; and what measures they will adopt to reduce any harm caused by ineffective or provocative practices.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, the background to this debate is the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on 25 June last year. In a characteristically hard-hitting speech, the noble Lord pointed out that criticisms of secret detention, rendition and Guantanamo had made:

“Killing … a more attractive proposition than making captures”.

He went on to ask,

“where does that leave the rule of law … Where does it leave the credibility of the alliance?”.—[Official Report, 25/6/13; col. 721.]

I start from the proposition that democracy and humane values can best be defended by humane and lawful methods. The so-called war on terror has been a mistake from the start, although the use of force against particular terrorists is acceptable. I remind your Lordships that successive British Governments used the criminal law against terrorists associated with Northern Ireland. Internment and shoot to kill were briefly tried, but soon rejected. If anyone says that the IRA or others were just operating in a remote part of Ireland, I would reply that we should remember that the whole British Cabinet were twice nearly killed, in Brighton and in Downing Street.

For the reason I have given, I opposed the use of indefinite detention without charge or trial. My name was included, with many others, as an amicus curiae in cases about Guantanamo detainees and I have met with Reprieve and others defending such detainees. I deeply regret that President Obama has not yet fulfilled his pledge to end detention without trial. Secret detentions—in eastern Europe, Djibouti, Afghanistan or elsewhere—are equally objectionable. Rendition to enable others to carry out torture that Western states are too law-abiding or too squeamish to do themselves is wholly despicable. It cannot be doubted that British airspace and airfields were used to assist renditions, whatever equivocations have been used to deny this. Waterboarding and other techniques of enhanced interrogation, although approved in some cases by US authorities, are tantamount to torture and therefore rejected by most fair-minded people. Why have I gone through this list of unacceptable practices? It is because they are wrong in themselves as well as short-sighted. They sacrifice long-term interests and reputation for the sake of short-term gains, which may well prove illusory.

Attacks by drones, or UAVs, began in 2002. In Yemen, there were 93 strikes, killing some 900 people, including 66 civilians, for example a wedding party last December. In Pakistan, at least 400 civilians have been killed, including some children. Survivors have given evidence to Congress, and only this week I met some such survivors here in Westminster. The toll may be much higher, as also in Afghanistan and Somalia. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drones last May put the total number of deaths at 2,700. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who I am glad to see in his place, when replying to the earlier debate, said the RAF had launched 394 missiles in Afghanistan. Our forces were relatively lucky, because it is claimed they have only killed four civilians.

Since 2001, detention and drone killings have been principally used against Afghans, Arabs and other assorted Muslims who have come under the sway of jihadi ideologies. What seems to have been overlooked is that Afghans and Arabs have a highly developed sense of personal honour. The special term for this is “izzat” in Pashtun and “karama” in Arabic. For every person arbitrarily detained, tortured or maltreated, and for every related woman or child killed, a whole extended family or tribe may seek revenge in order to restore their wounded honour. It is true that traditional Sunni ethics forbid suicide, even to promote a just cause; they also ban the killing of women and children even in a just war. The extreme jihadi/takfiri ideology has, however, consistently rejected such teaching. We should therefore beware of policies that simply raise up future generations of jihadi holy warriors, including suicide bombers. We should understand that death from the skies is a good way to alienate whole populations, who are largely defenceless.

It is worth noting that the United States has followed Israel in its policy of targeted killings of supposed enemies. Between 1995 and 2012 Israel assassinated at least 61 men in the Middle East outside its own borders, and no doubt others before and after those years. Israel thus lowered itself to the level of the notorious medieval Old Man of the Mountain, the patron of the Assassins. I hope that the US will see that assassinations have not stopped terror attacks, or even defeated national resistance. Neither has administrative detention, as the Israelis describe it.

Will our Government discuss these issues with the United States, pointing out the risks involved and how counterproductive some of the practices are likely to prove? Will they press for binding codes of conduct? Will they emphasise international law and conventions and assert the importance of parliamentary, civilian and judicial control over the treatment of suspects and the use of drones to kill alleged enemies?

I thank in advance your Lordships who are kindly speaking in this debate, despite the strong pull of the main Chamber. I look forward to replies to questions of which I have given notice. Some of the counterterrorist practices which I have criticised are wrong in themselves. All of them may harm British citizens overseas, provoke terror attacks at home and damage our social cohesion.

15:08

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Nobody has been more consistent, in his modest but effective way, in pursuing the issues before us in this short debate. In supporting him, I will make a few general observations.

First, we must not allow ourselves to be tempted into thinking that it is somehow weak to say that we are in a battle for hearts and minds. We are faced with an appalling threat which every father and grandfather in this country must take seriously: the threat to the innocent is real. We must therefore talk about what is muscular in policy. What is muscular in policy is not to react—not to settle for simply containing and managing the problem—but to seek to win minds. One observation that I would make about extremism and terrorism is that they operate best in the context of ambivalence.

There are large numbers of people, as we saw in our own history in Ireland, who would individually be appalled and horrified by some of the things that happened. Yet they would always have an element of doubt. However dreadful and however deserving of unqualified condemnation the acts, there was the idea that the perpetrators were perhaps on their side. They were perhaps fighting for rights and a concept of society which had not yet been achieved. There is a grey area of ambivalence. This means that people do not leap up from—or struggle out of—bed every morning and say, “What can I do today to expose the terrorists?”. There is an undermining element of doubt and ambiguity. That is why I will never take second place to anyone in saying, “Let’s be rid of the nonsense which we allow ourselves to hear from time to time about what is strong and what is weak in the response”.

The real issue is to win minds. If we are to do this there must be something to which people can relate. There must be hope, and a context of decency and fairness in society. There must be a convincing context of justice that people can see and relate to. In the aftermath of Syria we have been presented with a renewed campaign. I applaud those with responsibility in this area who remind us without qualification that the dangers of terrorism in our own society are accentuated because of what is happening in Syria. We have to be on our guard and we have to be effective.

However, that makes it all the more important that we establish in the United Kingdom in all we do a transparent commitment to the values that we say are basic to our society and which we wish at all costs to defend. That is why I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is replying to this debate. If I am allowed to say so, over a number of issues over the years I have come to like and admire him as a decent parliamentarian who cares about society, although across a political divide.

I now want to make some points about the interconnections, or connected government as we sometimes call it, and our effectiveness in winning hearts and minds. Forgive me if I have to oversimplify slightly. If a well qualified, intelligent, thinking and decent man or woman, who is struggling to find a future for their family in the real desperation of the world as it is, has a bad experience in the immigration process, are we not sowing the seeds of the ambivalence of which I speak? I am not one of those who object to the concept of the need for a convincing immigration policy; we cannot just have an open door. However, this is why it matters desperately that everything within the procedures happens with decency, civilised values and so on.

When something goes wrong, let us please remember that there is an element of real potential—I hesitate to use the word because it is very strong—treasonable activity. It plays into the hands of the extremists, who play on the doubts and the anxieties that exist. It strengthens the climate of ambivalence: is this society really about the things it talks about, or has it got double-speak and double values? That is why what we do in immigration policy is so important. It is why, when we are talking of the armed services, the police or the security services, we should uphold people within those organisations who are determined to operate by the highest standards.

When things go wrong, they are not just wrong and to be condemned as acts that are insupportable in terms of the rules and regulations and conventions, they are counterproductive in terms of giving ground to extremist recruiters. We have to be infinitely more rigorous in seeing the connections in so many elements of our society and public life between what is happening and the way it is happening, and our determination to preserve security in this country.

I think I have said this in the House before and I do not apologise for saying it again: I was greatly influenced at the age of 13, in 1948, when I was taken to Geneva by my father to an international conference that he was organising. At that conference, I had the privilege of meeting personally Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt was not just championing a nicer way of organising society in which human rights would be an element. She was a tough woman. Like many others in the aftermath of the Second World War, she had seen that human rights and all that attaches to them were a fundamental and indispensable element of security and stability. If you do not have human rights, there is always the danger of extremism gaining ground. The commitment to human rights throughout everything we do is therefore desperately important.

Sometimes I am anxious about phraseology that is too easily used about the trade-off between human rights and security. There is no trade-off between them. Human rights are central to security, and from that standpoint it is all about how we uphold them in everything we do.

15:17

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may also add my voice of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and say of him and a number of his noble colleagues in the House of Lords that they constitute the collective conscience of the Chamber, and in that context I want to express my great appreciation of all the work that he does. Let me also say, like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for whom I have the greatest respect, that it is very nice to have the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, here to respond to the debate. As far as I can tell he works infinitely hard to respond to the questions and pleas of his fellow Members. I would like to express my thanks to him and to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for their willingness to be present and to take seriously the issues we are raising.

I am going almost entirely to address the domestic scene because the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Judd, have talked quite rightly about the international and broader position. I want to talk a bit about the issue of the indefinite detention of those who are either suspected of terrorism or, in some cases, are simply illegal immigrants, because I believe that it is a very serious issue. We all heard this morning an inspiring speech by the Chancellor of Germany, and one of the most impressive things about it was the way in which she frequently reiterated the goals of the European Union. She said that they are peace, freedom and prosperity. I want to address the issue of freedom.

Of all the countries of the European Union, there are only two that have no limit on the length of detention of people who are sent to detention centres either because they are illegal immigrants or because they are suspected—in most cases it is found to be rare—of being involved in some kind of terrorist activity. I found that amazing when I first heard about it. I did not really believe it, so I pursued it using every line of research I possibly could. Let me say in a completely non-partisan spirit that the understanding and agreement to allow non-limited detention to go on started with the Labour Government and has been continued, to my great regret, by this Government. I want to challenge this bipartisan policy.

For every EU country which has not opted out of the so-called return directive which was passed in 2008 and made active in 2010—it is a prime EU directive—that directive says that the maximum period for which people can be detained without any form of trial is six months. One can then appeal for an extension of an additional 12 months, making a total maximum figure of 18 months. However, we should not forget that that figure is subject to there having been an agreement to the extension of 12 months: the normal limit is six months and 18 months is the absolute limit. That is not so in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, partly for reasons that are a hangover from the terrorist issues of the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, indicated.

That means that, at the present time, on the figures for 2012-13, we spend £34 million in keeping just under 3,000 people—the latest figure is 2,685—in unlimited detention. That is bad enough. However, in addition to that, these detention centres—and there are enough to deal with the 3,000 figure, which is the current maximum—are outsourced to private administrators or private executors of the rules. They are not run by the Home Office or the police; they are run by private bodies.

As I understand it, these private bodies are not subject to any form of regular inspection. They are inspected if there is a death in their premises by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but that is the only form of accountability there is. Therefore one of the first questions I want to ask my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach is whether the Home Office might consider bringing in a regular inspection of these detention centres. In some centres, such as Harmondsworth, the numbers are quite troubling. Eight people have lost their lives through self-harm, suicide or accident in Harmondsworth over the past few years. The figures are lower for other detention centres.

I declare an interest: I am a patron of the Gatwick detention centre, which is remarkable and has never had a single unacknowledged death. What characterises Gatwick but does not characterise Harmondsworth is the existence of a regular pool of volunteers drawn from the locality, from the countryside—from the community, if you like—who regularly visit those in detention, giving them moral support and help and useful advice. That has had a wonderful outcome because it has not only given the local community an understanding of the detention centre and made it willing to engage with it, but it has also given the detainees, some of whom had been tortured or imprisoned for years before they got here, the kind of moral support and friendship that they desperately need. It is a wonderful social experiment, recognised by the Queen but not very much by Parliament.

Having asked the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, whether we could consider some kind of accountability for these detention centres, I come to the serious point that many of those in detention find it difficult to apply for bail. Under the new Immigration Bill, they will largely be expected to apply for any reconsideration of their case from another country. For most of them, that is not possible and not practicable. They cannot afford it, they do not have the communication, they do not have the language and they do not have the advice.

The other aspect of this issue which troubles me, apart from the high expense, is the fact that it makes the UK look like a poor member of the attempt to get civil liberties and freedom strengthened within the European Union. I repeat that we are the only country— along with the Republic of Ireland, which has been persuaded by us to support an opt-out—which has opted-out completely from the return directive of 2010. Sadly, that opt-out was made in 2006 and so, once again, none of us can say, “Sorry, it was not us”. It was us. It was all of us.

As I have said, the current expenditure is £34 million, which is quite a lot for 3,000 people, but there is now a proposal to convert the old prison at Verne in Dorset to a detention centre at a cost of £30 million. That is a big jump in the amount of money made available for detention. It is due to open later this year or, at the latest, early next year. So, on the basis of legality, freedom and expense—and, not least, on the basis of losing the good will and respect of other countries, because we are one of only two in the whole of the EU about which this is true—we really ought to consider whether there are some alternatives.

Let us take people—for example, from Somalia—against whom there is no criminal charge but who cannot be returned under United Nations HRC rules because their country is too dangerous to be sent back to. They are in suspension: they are not out of detention but cannot be returned, they have not been tried, they have not committed crimes and there are several hundred of them in this condition. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, whom I regard, as does the noble Lord, Lord Judd, as a sensible and thoughtful person, whether he and the Home Office might not find it possible to let such people —I am talking now about Somalians, or others who cannot be returned for the reasons given—be released on licence, or, if you like, under probation, where they might have to report to police every week and their position would be regularly reviewed? It would cost the country a great deal less, it would obviate a great deal of real psychological and mental suffering, which, as I said, has led in some cases to self-mutilation and suicide, and it would save the Government a great deal of money and gain them a great deal of respect.

15:26

[Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for providing us with the opportunity to discuss this important subject. I am delighted and honoured to follow the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who are all much more experienced, knowledgeable and committed than I am. However, I want to say a few words. We are discussing this important issue a day after Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowali were sentenced for their appalling, despicable and heinous crime against Lee Rigby, an innocent soldier. I thank Mr Justice Sweeney for separating these two criminals from the Islamic faith and the Muslim community in his remarks.

In February 2011 the Prime Minister, David Cameron, tarnished the image of British Muslims by speaking in Munich about radicalisation and “Islamic extremists”. Then in December, during his visit to China, he said:

“There are just too many people who have been radicalised in Islamic centres, who have been in contact with extremist preachers, who have accessed radicalising information on the internet and haven’t been sufficiently challenged. I want to make sure in our country that we do this effectively”.

I have no problem with the Prime Minister’s fight against extremism and we will help him and work with him, but I wish that he had made these two speeches in east London, Bradford or Luton, or even at his Eid party at Downing Street, rather than in Germany and China. It sounds so much like the colonial attitude of divide and rule. The good guys are invited to the Eid party but the bad guys he cannot face—Sufi Islam versus the Jamat-e-Islami, the Deobandis and the Ahl-e-Hadiths, the so-called Wahhabis. Although he enjoys the hospitality of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and others, I wonder whether the Prime Minister tells them what he says and does at home.

The isolation of large sections of the Muslim community is not good. Demonisation and sensational headlines in the tabloid newspapers are also bad. Despite what the media portray, Muslims are not the major source of terrorist atrocities. The Government seem preoccupied with Islamist terrorism despite the fact that, according to Europol, fewer than 6% of terrorist acts across the continent, year on year for the past 10 years, have been carried out by Muslims. Counterterrorist anti-extremism measures need to be more holistic in their approach and be careful not to cast aspersions and turn particular communities into social outcasts.

Counterterrorism practices have often been leveraged through dangerous rhetoric on so-called “non-violent extremism” and “conveyor belt theory”. The whole discourse is problematic and lacks evidence. CIA officer Marc Sageman, who also advised the New York Police Department and testified in front of the 9/11 Commission, described the conveyor belt theory as “nonsense” and said that there was little empirical evidence for such a conveyor belt process:

“It is the same nonsense that led governments a hundred years ago to claim that left-wing political protests led to violent anarchy”.

The Government need to take an evidence-based approach. There are clear laws surrounding incitement to violence and hate speech. For the Government to develop a new category called “non-violent extremism” and claim that it produces a conveyor belt to violent extremism has real implications for freedom of speech. People have a right to hold opposing views on political governance, whether they be communist, socialist or whatever.

Both the media and the Government have made assertions that radicalisation is occurring at universities, yet the Universities UK report makes clear that there is no evidence for such a link. Ms Dandridge, the chief executive of Universities UK, said that universities had been unfairly singled out for attention because many terrorists went to university,

“but they tend to be young people and 40 per cent of young people go to university”—

again, an evidence-based approach, not simply making assertions. Such measures would only be detrimental to free speech at university campuses and oppose the values that we are supposed to cherish. The protection of free speech on campus is enshrined in law within Section 43 of the Education Act, but it is in jeopardy.

Professor Michael Lister and Professor Lee Jarvis from Oxford Brookes University and Swansea University wrote a paper based upon empirical data from a series of UK-based focus groups. It was on the impact of antiterrorism measures on citizenship in the UK. They found that people felt that antiterrorism measures eroded rights, freedoms and liberties and went against the whole point of living in a democracy. If you remove the freedom of individuals, it restricts the democracy we live in. The Government should take on board a wide range of expert opinions, not a few select or cherry-picked voices.

I turn to policies abroad, a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Judd. At the meeting of the APPG on Drones on Tuesday, we heard evidence from two victims of drone attacks and from Mr Clive Stafford Smith from Reprieve, who described the 600,000 citizens of North Waziristan as living through a blitz. His mother had lived through the Blitz and he said that she described how people lived day after day in the same conditions. One third of the population in the region is on antidepressants due to drone attacks and the fear of them. He said that the American policy on drones has made the Americans the most hated people on earth for the Pakistanis in Pakistan. True, the Pakistan Government are taking action against the terrorists and the Taliban. It because they are doing it themselves that the public support that action. However, they resent any outsider making attacks on their land, on their culture and, as they perceive it, on their religion. That increases radicalisation and creates suicide bombing.

15:34

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for giving us this opportunity to debate a matter of real concern and import to the citizens of this country. The subject matter of the debate is the Government’s assessment of the effectiveness of counterterrorism practices. I want to refer in that context to the recent developments in Syria.

Terrorism is not just a major issue for the United Kingdom; it is a global threat. As I understand it, in 2011 more than 10,000 terrorist attacks occurred in around 70 countries, resulting in almost 45,000 casualties and more than 12,500 fatalities. About three-quarters of those attacks occurred in the Near East and south Asia, but in 2011 attacks in Africa and the western hemisphere were at a five-year high. The figures indicate that in the 12 months to 30 September 2012—I am not sure if there are any more recent figures—there were 245 terrorism-related arrests in Great Britain; 45 people were charged with terrorism-related offences and 18 convicted, with a further 25 people awaiting trial. At the end of 2012, 122 people were in prison in Great Britain for terrorist, extremist or terrorism-related offences, including those on remand. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, has already mentioned, the sentencing in a case yesterday reminded us of the brutality and savagery that can be involved in such offences in our own backyard in broad daylight. The value and importance of the work that our police and security services do to protect us cannot be overestimated.

In their last annual report on the UK’s strategy for countering terrorism, the Government stated that there were now hundreds of foreign fighters from Europe in Syria and that, as and when UK residents return here, there is a risk that they may carry out attacks using what were described in the report as the skills that they have developed overseas. The most recent annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of this Parliament also referred to the increasing potential for those who travel overseas to train and fight alongside one of the al-Qaeda affiliate groups to subsequently return to the UK and pose a direct threat to the UK’s national security. The report went on to say that what was most significant in this regard was the growing trend for UK resident extremists to join elements of the opposition in Syria, and that this was likely to form part of the terrorist threat picture for years to come. The report said that the shape of the terrorist threat was potentially changing from what it described as tightly organised cells to looser networks of small groups and individuals who operate more independently, and that it was essential that the agencies continued to make a clear assessment of this evolving picture in order to keep ahead of the threat.

We have had a much more recent update on the position, with the head of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism being reported in the media as saying that the biggest challenge now facing the police and intelligence agencies was the size of extremist groups in Syria and the number of Britons joining them. He was reported as having gone on to say that the number of foreign fighters in Syria was higher than anywhere since Afghanistan in 1989, and that Syria was different from any other counterterrorism challenge that this country had faced since 9/11 because of the number of terrorist groups now engaged in the fighting; their size and scale; the number of people from this country who are joining them; the ease of travel; the availability of weapons; and the intensity of the conflict. Statements along very similar lines have also been made recently by the head of Scotland Yard’s counterterrorism unit.

There have been suggestions—I stress that that is all they are—that there may now be new laws being considered by the Government. That would of course be an interesting development; the Government have hardly strengthened our ability to keep a check on the potentially most dangerous people, since the Government’s own terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which placed the most menacing terror suspects under special, albeit watered down, restrictions were, I assume—subject to the Minister telling me otherwise—brought to an end, as intended, a month or so ago.

The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has confirmed that those who were the subject of terrorism prevention and investigation measures and their special restrictions were considered the most dangerous threats even by the standards of international terrorism. In relation to one who absconded, the Secretary of State simply tried to assert that the only reason why that individual had been made subject to a TPIM was to prevent them travelling to support terrorism overseas. In the light of the recent warnings about Syria, that suggests that if that really is the Government’s criterion, rather more people should be being placed on TPIMs instead of allowing the measures to lapse after two years with the consequences that we now see. It would certainly be helpful if the Minister could indicate what the additional cost has been, in terms of extra surveillance, of watering down the previous control orders and replacing them with TPIMs, and what is now the additional cost of surveillance of those who, I assume, were until a month or so ago subject to a TPIM and its associated restrictions, but are no longer so even though there has presumably been no change in the assessment of the serious threat that they represent to national security.

Perhaps the Minister could also say if the Government are indeed considering new laws. Are the Government considering activating the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, which, in essence, reinstates control orders? Is Clause 60 of the Immigration Bill, on deprivation of citizenship, the Government’s response? A number of steps were initiated following the work of the task force set up by the Prime Minister on tackling radicalisation and extremism. What is the position now in regard to the implementation of those steps, and what consideration is being given to any further steps that may be needed in the light of very recent concerns that have been expressed, particularly in relation to the potential implications for us of the situation in Syria?

We all have a common interest in national security and in protecting the citizens of this country from acts of terrorism. We need to have the ability to take proportionate, strong and firm action quickly and decisively, within the law, against those individuals who constitute a real threat. Equally, though, the approaches that we adopt and the actions that we take need to give at least as much attention to strengthening the hand of those who work hard to persuade predominantly young men and women to ignore the siren voices of those who may seek to encourage them to go down the road of violence and hatred, and instead to reject that route.

I hope that the Minister will be able to say what the Government's response is to the very recent concerns that have been expressed about the potential consequences of the situation in Syria, and apart from—of course—continuing to try and get negotiations to resolve matters under way, what further actions if any the Government now intend to take in respect of counterterrorism practices.

15:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for tabling it. It has been a useful discussion. The debate has ranged far and wide. I hope that my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby will allow me to write to her on detention and detention centres because I would like to be a position to reassure her. She raised some challenging issues in bringing that into this debate. If I may, I will copy all noble Lords in on the subject and place a copy in the Library.

I think it is clear that we all share a common agreement that the Government’s first responsibility is the security of the public. We face a real and serious threat from terrorism, and this threat becomes more diverse and less visible. It disperses into areas where it is harder for us to work and threatens the freedoms that we all hold dear. The police and the intelligence agencies do an outstanding job in identifying and disrupting terrorist plots. It is good that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, paid tribute to their work. It is vital that they have the resources that they need to do just that. The Government have protected police counterterrorism funding, maintaining core capabilities since 2010.

As Andrew Parker, the director-general of MI5, informed the Intelligence and Security Committee when he appeared before it in November last year, since the attacks on London on 7 July 2005, 34 terrorist plots have been successfully disrupted in this country. However, there can be no guarantee that each and every plot—some hatched thousands of miles away, or by a lone individual—can be thwarted.

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, reminded us of the sentencing yesterday of the murderers of Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich. That, in turn, reminds me of the similar incident of the vile murder of Mohammed Saleem in Birmingham. Further afield, we remember the attacks at the Boston Marathon and the Nairobi shopping mall, which resulted in 60 deaths, six of them British nationals. All this goes to show that terrorism is an international problem. The numerous casualties of terrorism are found in many countries. Our partnerships with international allies are vital to the protection of the UK and our interests overseas, and innocent people everywhere. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, should be assured that the Government are well aware that both victims and protagonists of terrorism are of many different faiths and are found in many different countries. The statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, reinforce that point.

The threat continues to arise from Syria, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out. We know that it is the number one destination for jihadists today. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, thousands of foreign fighters, including a large number of Europeans, gain combat experience and forge extremist links there. It is sobering that more than 200 of these individuals have connections with the UK.

Notwithstanding the terrorist threat, this Government also remain committed to protecting our freedoms. In combating the threat, the United Kingdom will never use methods that undermine our deep attachment to freedom, human rights and the rule of law, and we will not condone them anywhere. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was right to emphasise the necessity of maintaining civilised standards in regard to human rights. Naturally, we expect all states to act in accordance with international law and take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties when conducting counterterrorism operations.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me how we measure the effectiveness of our counterterrorism practices. As he will know, we do this under the UK’s counterterrorism strategy, CONTEST, with its four key aims. I hope that as I recount these I will reassure noble Lords about this strategy. Our strategy is to prevent people becoming terrorists. Our strategy is to protect against terrorist attacks. Our strategy is to prepare, in the event of an attack, and to pursue terrorists and those who support them. That lies at the core of our policy. It is shared, I think, by people across the political spectrum.

Under CONTEST, we continually review our counterterrorism powers to ensure that they are effective and fair. Following our 2011 review of these powers, we reduced the limit on pre-charge detention from 28 to 14 days. We ended the indiscriminate use of stop and search powers. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, QC, is often quoted when we discuss these matters. He said,

“The cautious liberalisation of anti-terrorism law from 2010 to 2012 is to be welcomed”.

While ensuring that our powers that are proportionate, we also have to be certain that they remain effective. The Justice and Security Act 2013 means that civil courts can handle and protect sensitive material and provide for robust oversight of our agencies by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Noble Lords will remember passing that legislation through this House late last year. The Bill that I have just been handling provides further safeguards that we have proposed to Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. These include a reduction of the maximum time for which someone can be examined at our ports and borders.

We have also recently updated the royal prerogative, which can be used to prevent individuals from seeking to travel on a British passport to, for example, engage in fighting overseas and to return to the UK. Any action to refuse or withdraw a passport must be proportionate, and this power will be used only sparingly. We continue to enjoy an open and constructive relationship with international partners, including the United States, on a range of counterterrorism matters, such as the security of our borders.

Since the attempted aviation attacks on Christmas Day 2009 and at East Midlands Airport in 2010, we have banned inbound flights from the highest-risk countries, helped to raise security standards at departure points, strengthened pre-departure checks and introduced a no-fly scheme to stop those who pose a threat from travelling here. Following the Boston and Woolwich attacks, we have worked with the US to share learning on preventing radicalisation, including radicalisation online. Our success in countering terrorism is supported by our relationship with other countries, by sharing our learning with each other.

In order to be truly effective—in order to work—our counterterrorism powers must also command the trust of British communities. The Prevent strategy, which we revised in 2011, aims to stop people becoming or supporting terrorists. It can work only if the public believe our approach is measured and appropriate. I reciprocate the generous comments that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made about me. He pointed to the importance of a civilised relationship between citizen and government at all times. He will know we work closely with local authorities, the police and others to challenge the radical and distorted ideologies that can lead to violence and to support those who may be vulnerable to them. The Prime Minister’s Extremism Task Force will ensure that no opportunity is missed to counter terrorism in all its forms. We cannot be complacent: the terrorist threat changes and develops. We must change and develop with it.

I have mentioned the threat from Syria and elsewhere overseas, but back home we must also continue to build Prevent capability, make our borders and aviation sector more secure, and give the police and agencies what they need to do their jobs. There can be no doubt that the publication of intelligence material stolen by Edward Snowden has made this work harder. Communications data remain essential to the investigation of serious crime, and this must be addressed in the next Parliament.

Our powers must remain strong and effective to counter the terrorist threat. But I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and all Members of the Grand Committee that we are clear that they must remain within the bounds of international law. We must also ensure that they remain necessary and fair, and are understood publicly by all to be so. We have a proud tradition of protecting our freedoms, and this must be upheld. It is fitting for me to pay tribute to the police officers, prosecutors, community workers and others who protect us all from the very real threats we face.

[Lord Hylton]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say something about the kinds of bilateral conversations with the United States for which I was asking?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I made it clear that we work very closely with the United States and with other allies. If the noble Lord would like me to, I can perhaps expand in writing to some degree on what I have said in my response if he feels that it will help, and I will certainly include other noble Lords in that correspondence, but he will also be aware that we do not comment in detail on security matters. Given the scale of the threat we face, we have to honour that convention because it is very important for our security that we do so. But to the extent that I am able to reply to the noble Lord, I will very much seek to do so; I will copy in noble Lords who have participated in this debate and place a copy in the Library.

15:58

Sitting suspended.

Health: Concussion in Sport

Thursday 27th February 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

16:00

Asked by

[Lord Addington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to (1) sports national governing bodies, and (2) national medical services, regarding concussion sustained in sporting injuries.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I first thank everyone who bothered to put their name down for this debate. I would like to say why I felt that a discussion on this matter would be worth while. When we start talking about concussion and injuries and the areas around them it is important to try to get the whole situation in context. When it comes to head injuries there is always a great deal of fear within any organisation, and quite rightly so, because we are not entirely sure what happens. If your head goes, everything goes. Every time you talk about this, in particular when there is the idea that children will be involved, there is a fear reaction. Also, in sport—and this is probably very true of my own sport, rugby union—there is the machismo. “Well, it didn’t do me any harm”, a player will say as he twitches and staggers. However, that reaction always comes in.

I want to look at a debate which started at the elite level of the game. Here I pay tribute to Chris Bryant MP, who I first met on the Commons and Lords rugby trip about 10 years ago. Not a bad centre, likes to run straight and does not miss many tackles: that is my assessment of Chris. He has done a great deal of work at the professional end of the game. In the period of time since I had my flirtation with the top end of the game—and when push comes to shove it was a flirtation—professional rugby union players have got bigger, stronger and harder. They have gained weight and got fitter. They are now basically monsters. One of the biggest changes in the game is that they now take the defence more seriously and look for heavier collisions more frequently.

The other side is that those players are professionals. They have a structure which looks after them, which is aware of them and has invested in them on dozens of different levels to observe what is going on. At all levels there is a great incentive to make sure that people are functioning properly. Most of sport does not have that. It is also the case that most sport is played at an amateur or community-level basis, where people are not playing or training primarily because they are paid but because they want to be there. They enjoy the process. There are some, possibly not in this debate but quite frequently in other situations, who cannot understand this process and the fact that people enjoy what they are doing.

Virtually all sports have a danger of concussion and head injury. They involve people moving around and bumping into each other, and occasionally bumping into very hard balls travelling very fast. All sport has an element of risk. All sport will have to try to adjust and ensure it knows what it is doing. All of sport will have to interact with the National Health Service to make sure that these problems do not become chronic. As we become more aware of these problems we tend to discover more of them.

At the amateur, more participatory, casual end of sports, people frequently play more than one sport. The specialist at the top end will concentrate on one sport alone. That is why I frame this debate in these terms. Rugby union, rugby league and possibly gridiron football, although not that much of it is played in this country, look for a collision, as do the martial arts. In other sports it will occur as an inevitable part of the game at even the most casual level. In basketball, players are not supposed to hit each other, but people jump up for the ball and two of them can hit each other. If they do not clash heads and elbows, there is a nice hard surface to bang their heads on. It will occur. For example, in football, if the defender, goalkeeper and the forwards all go up for the same ball, all trying to head it—or the goalkeeper punch it—there is the possibility of impact. It has occurred at the top level of the game.

I have tried to look at how all sports manage to get the information running through themselves about what they should do and how they manage to get this down to the more vulnerable groups. In this case, children and the young are more at risk—more of them apparently have head injuries and more come into casualty. Much of this may be simply because the young climb trees, for instance, or cross roads less carefully than others, but it still occurs. They are more at risk not only from the one incident but the secondary incident. How do we take this on board and encourage the sports themselves to identify when somebody is at risk? How do we make sure that the people who are in charge of the organisations and of coaching know to tell the rest of them when to step down? How do we tell the medical services when they should take action and when they should tell you to go home? Very importantly, how do we tell them when not to overreact?

There is a general consensus that exercise is the wonder drug. It helps prevent types of cancer and even dementia. Most people take exercise, at least initially, through a sport. If we could all be trained to jog the 2.3 miles 2.4 times a week that are required to keep our bodies healthy, we all would and we would not have to worry about this—but we do not, as people find it basically fairly boring. How do we interact and make sure that this is going on?

When it comes to examples of good practice, the best culture I have seen for dealing with injuries is probably in anything to do with riding or the equestrian world. I live in Lambourne, the valley of the racehorse, and in National Hunt jumping, people come off the horses fairly frequently. I have seen quite an intimidating tea-towel about some old National Hunt jockey—I cannot remember which one, but he had X number of wins, rides and broken bones—which showed which bones he had broken flying off a horse. In that sport, a hard hat is the thing you absolutely always wear. The sport knows that people get hurt and it shares doctors now with rugby union. In rugby union, you probably have twice the amount of person to practise on but similar types of injury.

How do you get that culture down into the grass roots? Rugby union has a very good scheme, which seems to be a brand leader, called “Use your head”. It comes down to a culture of making sure that introductory-level coaches are taught how to deal with people who have head injuries. Will the Minister encourage all sports to get similar types of schemes going? We need to encourage people to take part.

Also, how do the medical services react? They should not just say, “Don’t do it for X number of weeks”. That would mean people will ignore you, because most of the time—statistics prove this—although you have a slight headache and feel slightly giddy, you are fine. We do not want to go back to assuming that you are not in danger, but most of the time you are fine. It is when this gets compounded and, on the odd occasion, the freak event and the panic occur. How do we square this circle of reaction? Can we please have some guidance about what are the best schemes? How can we address this and get through?

We are told not to go to accident and emergency all the time as we are clogging up the doors. Will the other elements of the National Health Service know when to refer you on, when to tell you not to panic, when to tell you to rest and when to come back? That is what I am trying to get at. If we overreact here and act inappropriately we get rid of the benefits of sport. If we do not react at all, we will have occasional cases of tragedy and then more commonly occurring cases of impairment and damage in later life. We have got to work these together. What are the best practices for what we are doing and how are we going to bring them together? That is what I am trying to get at here.

I hope that this is the start of a process in which the NHS and all the sporting bodies talk to each other. They need to ensure that there is communication at the grass roots, at the schoolboy—or schoolgirl—level, and that people know what is going on and what is best practice. If they do not, we are in danger of creating another case where overreaction, bluff and basic ignorance mean that we end up with slightly less competition—not just in sport but in any competitive environment—and a few tragedies are the result. We do not want that. We want to go forward with activity and safety. That is something that we can achieve and we should try to.

16:09

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, the Committee is indebted to my noble friend Lord Addington for securing this debate. It is both timely and important. It is timely because it comes on the eve of the screening next week at the Curzon cinema here in London of the world premiere of “Head Games: The Global Concussion Crisis”, which will spark nationwide comment and debate. From the acclaimed director Steve James, it is a revealing documentary featuring neurological findings related to rugby and soccer players that will serve as a wake-up call for those who think that the devastating and chronic effects of repetitive head trauma are found only in American football and boxing. The film is inspired by the book Head Games: Football’s Concussion Crisis, written by the former Ivy League football player and WWE wrestler Christopher Nowinski. I believe it will capture the attention of the sports world, and it is already causing a stir in the United States.

Concussion is increasingly recognised as a serious medical condition that is interesting legislators around the world. Indeed, it is the only medical condition whose treatment is currently mandated by legislation in the United States. This is the result of the Zackery Lystedt law, started in Washington state, home of the Seattle Seahawks, by the Seahawks’ doctor, Dr Stan Herring, after a terrible accident involving a teenager, Zackery Lystedt. There are now Zackery Lystedt laws in 49 of the 50 states of the union; Mississippi is the only one that does not have one.

The Zackery Lystedt law states, first, that concussion education must be delivered to parents, coaches and players in all sports, not just contact sports. Secondly, after a concussion the player must be removed from play and not allowed back on to the pitch. Thirdly, after a concussion the player cannot be allowed to return to sport until cleared to do so by a healthcare professional who has experience in concussion.

We have no legislation in the United Kingdom and, as my noble friend Lord Addington has highlighted, individual sports vary greatly in their attitude towards concussion management. That is the urgent issue that needs to be addressed. My noble friend mentioned horseracing, which is way ahead of the rest and started a management programme in 2004. The work that Dr Michael Turner, until recently chief medical officer of the Jockey Club, has done for jockeys has been world-leading and deserving of careful study and praise.

Rugby is still trialling new and appropriate codes; for example, the five-minute concussion timeout to allow doctors to assess and diagnose concussion. Speaking from a non-medical perspective, that seems a totally inadequate length of time and yet rugby has put many of the issues under consideration on the world stage. The highly controversial decision to allow Australia’s George Smith to return to action during his side’s third-test defeat to the British and Irish Lions last year, despite clearly having been concussed, has prompted one of a series of changes to the global trial of the pitch-side suspected concussion assessment, the PSCA protocol.

What is needed above all is education at the grass roots. At the moment there is nothing in this country that is structured for coaches, parents and clubs. That is a very serious state of affairs, which should concern all sports administrators and politicians. The South Africans have a great programme in this context called BokSmart, which should seriously be considered by all our governing bodies. The Canadians have Parachute and we have Headway.

The main source of information is the latest concussion consensus statement from Zurich 2012. It recently emphasised, once again, the need for education and in the United Kingdom all sports, not only contact sports, have faced the consequences of this. In soccer, there were changes to pitch-side assistance and medical requirements soon after the Reading-Chelsea match when Petr Cech sustained a depressed skull fracture and then the substitution goalie sustained a concussion, leaving John Terry in goal.

The Australians are probably the leaders internationally given the work being done in Aussie rules football in particular. Many sports are now caught up in the debate—NFL, ice hockey, FIFA, boxing, equestrian, rugby league and union. It is a global issue as well as a legal one.

What needs to be done? In this country we could create a national concussion and head injury research centre. This could address all of these issues, bring them together and ensure that what we are debating today is not a series of different practices across sports, clubs and schools but a centre capable of bringing together all research in this area and then disseminating it to all sports in this country. Above all, we need consistency in the approach of the national governing bodies of sport, both amateur and professional. Without it, and without such a voluntary approach working with the governing bodies of sport, there may be serious calls for legislation in the future, as there are at the moment in the United States.

Will the Minister, with his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Health, agree to a further meeting with interested members of the medical profession to discuss the establishment of a world-leading centre in the United Kingdom based on international co-operation, which I have called today the national concussion and head injury centre?

Perhaps I may set this in context. The current definition of concussion was first agreed in 2001 at the Vienna concussion consensus conference and has remained largely unchanged over the subsequent three meetings—the Prague concussion conference and then in 2008 at Zurich 1 and in 2012 at Zurich 2. It has been recognised that concussion is a complex neural process that does not involve any structural brain damage and does not produce any changes on conventional imaging—for example, an MRI scan. Normally it resolves spontaneously in seven to 10 days without medical intervention. However, it may linger on, and post-concussion syndrome may lead to long-term problems.

On the subject of long-term concerns, recent research published in the USA suggests that multiple concussions or sub-concussive impacts might lead to a serious brain condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy. This has resulted in a number of law suits being initiated in North America against the governing bodies of professional sports, the NFL and the NHL, and unless we in the UK act, sports governing bodies must expect similar legal action in the future.

My noble friend focused his remarks on the sports with the highest incidence of concussion. We need to look at all sports. Dr Turner, to whom I have referred, recognised that if concussion does not involve any structural damage it is reasonable to suggest that a little more impact would lead to a few nerve fibres becoming damaged or dying. He refers to this as concussion plus. You cannot tell the difference between concussion and concussion plus. They are indistinguishable at present because the tools we have are not sensitive enough to pick up the microscopic structural and chemical changes involved.

This is the tip of a highly complex medical iceberg. It is vital that we bring together all the expertise available in order to ensure that, by setting up a national centre—which could be world-leading and could co-operate internationally with best practice—our athletes, our clubs and our governing bodies are best served. I repeat, I hope the Minister will accept that this kind of initiative is worthy of further study and that he will attend a meeting—I hope with his colleagues from the Department of Health—with medical experts in this field, including Dr Michael Turner, to see what can be done to ensure that we are world leaders in this context, above all because we will be protecting the interests of our athletes, both able-bodied and disabled, as our first priority.

16:19

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for tabling this timely debate. The issue of concussion has been gaining momentum over recent months. The journalist Anne Peters has written extensively about it and it comes on the back of the announcement last August of the case of the NFL in the USA, where 4,500 athletes took a class action suit and sued the league. The league agreed to pay out a total of $765 million to fund concussion-related compensation, medical exams and research.

I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the issue of “Head Games”. Unfortunately, I cannot make the premiere next week, but I have read the book instead. It makes stark reading in terms of the information it lays in front of us. Who can forget the tragic case of Ben Robinson who died in 2011? He was a young man who died after being concussed on the pitch three times. I spoke to Ben’s father Peter this morning. It was very emotional. It is hard enough reading about Ben’s case, but it is incredibly powerful listening to a man talking about his son who died playing the sport he came to love. It is probably fair to say that Ben was not a natural rugby player, but he was really good at the sport and was one of the best players on the team. The hardest part was listening to Peter say that Ben’s mum Karen had been at the game and she realised that something was not right, but did not feel that she had any power to stop the game going ahead. When she did try to intervene, she was told to “calm down”.

This is a powerful argument in making us realise that we have to involve many people and governing bodies in the discussion. I absolutely do not want to stop children playing sport, because the benefits are greater than being inactive. Peter told me that Ben received advice on nutrition, training and absolutely everything except concussion. Peter also said that he has a younger son who does not play rugby, but he would let him if he felt that he could do so safely.

There is a lot of information out there, but would I have gone out and looked for it had I not been taking part in this debate? The answer is no, because I would have assumed that concussion would not be an issue in most sports that my daughter and I are involved in. Some of this comes back to how we educate people. Sport Scotland has issued a really good leaflet highlighting the issue of concussion and what you have to do if you see it in a young player. At the launch of the leaflet, Dr Willie Stewart presented a huge amount of information. He had interviewed 300 schools from the south-west of Scotland. The good stuff was that 90% recognised that concussion could be fatal. However, 30% of the schools said that they would still leave a child with suspected concussion on the field of play. Curiously, virtually all the 30% who would have left the child on the pitch would have then informed the parents that they thought the child had concussion, so there is a bit of a mismatch in terms of how young people were being treated. The survey also made it very clear that there was a need for a physical test in the first 24 hours after injury, but there was not the understanding that it was important for the brain to rest as well—that is a really important part of rehab.

It is also interesting that well known rugby players like Will Greenwood have spoken out on this matter and the need to take it seriously. However, it is really difficult for current players to speak out, because it is their career. How much time they spend on the pitch affects their sponsorship, media coverage and future contracts. So I think it is important that we engage retired players and, I hope, encourage more competing players to think about this.

Over the weekend, I was told the story of a professional club player who was very clearly concussed but refused to leave the pitch. The good news is that the referee refused to carry on. That might be easier to do at club level and it should be hugely applauded. But at a lower level, where there is a lot of pressure from parents and the children themselves who want to play, we should not be asking the children, “Are you okay to play on?”.

I have had a lot of help with preparing for this debate. The RFU has showed me a lot of information. Rupert Moon, a great Welsh rugby player and also a friend of mine, put me in touch with a lot of professional people within the sport who are trying to filter the information down. But we have to do so much more than we currently do. We have to recognise that, while there are many stories about rugby, the problem is about so much more than rugby. Yesterday, in the New York Times, there was a story about a young man, a 29 year-old former soccer player who died from chronic traumatic encephalopathy. He is the first named player to have died from this condition. On a four-point scale of severity he was considered to be at stage 2.

Part of all this is education and getting people to think about the issue, no matter whether it is lacrosse, hockey or any other sport we can think of. We also have to recognise that sport is dangerous. There were a number of concussion injuries during the recent Winter Olympics, while Maria Komissarova was injured during ski cross training. She has undergone a number of operations on her spine. My own husband broke his back cycling, and indeed many of my friends are in wheelchairs due to playing sport. I have twice been hit by cars while out training. By the end of my career I also knew that, despite all the benefits of doing sport, I would probably end up with some severe damage to my back, neck and shoulders, which has happened. But I still believe that the benefits far outweigh the risks.

I was trying to find some kind of context for this. Stories about sports injuries will obviously hit the headlines in lots of media outlets, but it is a question of trying to figure out what the comparable data are. Statistics from Headway using data extracted from the NHS show some massive figures for head injuries. During 2011-12, 213,752 people were admitted to hospital. There has been a 33% increase in UK head injuries over the past decade. The number of severe traumatic brain injuries is running at between 10,000 and 20,000 per year in the UK. Interestingly, men are twice as likely to sustain a brain injury as women, and if we look at the target groups, it is 15 to 24 year-old males and people aged over 80. Those figures are important in terms of putting the issue in context and showing how many people are injured. However, it is hard to find data for the UK, so measuring data is an area in which we need to do more work.

Mortality rates due to blunt trauma in the USA among athletes aged under 21 in organised high-school and collegiate sport show that there were 261 trauma-related deaths, 1,139 cardiovascular deaths and 427 deaths from other causes. If those numbers are broken down by sport, American football is responsible for 56.7%, track and field 10%, baseball 6.9% and then gymnastics at 1%, hockey at 1% and weightlifting at 0.4%. The average number of deaths per year is nine. Again, comparing these figures against deaths in the general population, some 12,000 are killed in road traffic collisions, there are 6,000 homicides, 2,500 young people die of cancer and, bizarrely, 50 are killed in lightning-related incidents, which is interesting. That is why we need some context in the UK.

I am also very conscious as a mum whose daughter plays a lot of sport that the temptation is to stand on the sidelines and say, “Come on, you are all right”. My daughter has never hit her head playing sport, but when they skid across the hockey pitch one says, “Come on, darling. Give it a bit of a rub and you’ll be okay. Get back out there”. That is because there is pressure on people to carry on playing, and that is much more the case for boys. We have a culture where it is cool to be a sporty boy but not so cool to be a sporty girl. I think that that kind of pressure on boys is huge.

I have received some interesting information from a colleague of mine, David Sutton, who is the strength and conditioning coach at Northants Cricket. He has worked in numerous sports. He sent me some information on fencing, which I had never considered to be a sport where there was a risk of traumatic head injuries. What is looked for is the natural position of the arms following concussion. Immediately after moderate forces have been applied to the brainstem, the forearms are held flexed or extended, typically in the air, for a period lasting up to a few seconds. It is interesting that there is a lot of work in this area through fencing. David Sutton said that this ultimately comes down to three simple things. We need to educate our PE teachers and coaches. We need to be unafraid of running a SCAT score in order to check whether a young person has been injured. It is not enough just to say, “Are you okay?”. We also need much more training through accident and emergency departments and GP surgeries so that health workers understand the realities of concussion.

I am really pleased that we are discussing this subject in a debate and I hope that we will return to it again in the future.

16:28

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Addington for initiating this important debate. I must say at the beginning that I am speaking on this issue while being aware that there are noble Lords here who have far more experience and understanding of the subject than me. I wanted to speak in the debate for a number of reasons, which will become apparent in the next few minutes. I am a former teacher, and the importance of sport in general, and team sports in particular, is there for all to see. I do not need to catalogue the details of that importance. We are becoming an increasingly sports-mad nation, with more and more people participating in sport in so many different disciplines.

Every parent wants to know that their child is as safe they possibly can be, whatever sport they take part in. Parents want to know that their child has the right and suitable advice, equipment and medical support if something goes wrong. Of course, accidents do happen, and I am mindful of that myself. Having taken up skiing late in life, I was standing at the side admiring the view, completely out of anybody’s way, when a snowboarder hurtled towards me. The next thing I knew I had broken my tibia and torn my cruciate ligament. I had to be rushed off to hospital through no fault of my own. These things do happen.

In contact sports, the problem of concussion must be taken seriously. A cursory browse through the newspaper headlines shows what a real issue it has become: “Brain Damage Fear Hits Junior American Football”; “Concern over the Effects of Heavy Knocks to the Brain is Rising among Contact Sports”; “Rugby Union Doctor Warns of Legal Cases over Brain Damage”; “Concussion is a Massive Problem for Rugby, Says Players’ Union Manager” and so on.

I have been rather disappointed by Answers to some Questions in the other place. Jim Shannon asked the Secretary of State for Health,

“what recent discussions his Department has had with the Rugby Football Union regarding the problem of concussion in that sport”.

The Reply was that there had been,

“no discussions with the Rugby Football Union regarding the problem of concussion in the sport”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/14; col. 435W.]

Sir Bob Russell asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what advice players were receiving regarding head injuries and was told:

“It is a matter for National Governing Bodies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/13; col. 921W.]

I do not think it is a matter just for the governing bodies of those sports. We should not think is somebody else’s problem—it is an issue for all of us. I think that all of us would expect that the Government take these issues seriously and work with the national bodies and relevant partners to see what can be done.

One of the delightful—or less delightful—things about debates is that you have to do some research. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, mentioned Ben Robinson, who I did not know about until I did some research. I was saddened by the case of this lad who suffered a double concussion and died while playing a sport that he loved but, as in so many other cases like this, the parents immediately took up the issue, and a campaign was started. There was a meeting with the Scottish Government, there are leaflets available on what can be done and the message was developed, “If in doubt, sit them out,” which has been taken up by American football authorities. Out of this personal tragedy, a really important campaign has started. In my own city, a young boy called Oliver King died while swimming due to sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. He was 12 years old. As a result of that terrible tragedy, his father set up the Oliver King Foundation, which campaigns for defibrillators to be placed in every school. I am pleased to say that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is going to meet with the parents in the next few weeks. Again, some good has come out of a tragic sporting death.

It is not just a matter for sporting authorities. What should we do? First, we should not assign contact sports some sort of pariah status, but nor should we pretend that there is not a problem. We should not believe that there are quick and easy answers, such as a mandatory three-week rest that will solve the problems. Nor should we believe that we can spend 15 minutes looking at a cut as a result of a contact sport, but only a few minutes if there is concussion.

After doing the research, the person who best summed up for me what our attitude should be is the rugby player Dean Ryan, and I will leave his thoughts with you. My noble friend Lord Addington will know that Dean Ryan had six caps for England and is currently director of rugby at Worcester Warriors. Bizarrely, he was concussed not while playing rugby but in the victory celebrations after winning a match when somebody, in moment of hilarity, actually hit him. Examination showed that he had a large bruise on the side of his head. As he said in a newspaper article:

“The rule then was that concussion brought a mandatory three-week rest from the game, hence me missing that final league game at which the cup was presented”.

He had to give up the sport, as he started having 20 to 30 seizures per month and so on. I think that what he says is very telling and sums up my thoughts:

“To rid ourselves of the effects of a poisoned history and the macho culture which still pervades the issue of concussion, players have to believe in the guidance they are getting and this is where my frustrations lie. The game, the professional game, isn’t getting it. I’ve been to recent conferences on the subject hoping to learn the way forward, but instead came away with yet more conflicting views and argument. What the professional game needs is to be told what it must do. It must be authoritative and convincing. And until it gets that guidance there is little chance of persuading players that there is a way forward; that they can stop running away from the doctor, that they can stop hiding behind a wall of lies which prevents appropriate and sensitive treatment”.

14:48

[Baroness Billingham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for this debate. After listening to all the previous speakers, there is not much left to say. That is a good job because I have just been told that I have two minutes. Despite that, I am undaunted.

The purpose of this debate is to show that we are living in changing times. Only days ago, we were being thrilled by the Olympics and seeing people whizzing down slippery slopes on trays and so forth—all potentially lethal. At the weekend we saw the England and Wales rugby; if ever there was a clash of titans, that was it. In past times we would have accepted the odd bang or fall and expected play to resume fairly quickly. However, these are new times. The recent medical evidence has brought with it a far more cautious approach. The long-term effects cannot be ignored. In fact, the medical evidence has already affected the views of parents and participants in a whole range of sports. Rugby union, as has been said, is under more scrutiny than ever. It is now apparent that parents are refusing to allow their children to play that sport, which is something we all ought to be concerned about.

All sports played at either a competitive or non-competitive level share the possibility of injury. However, life is strange, and it is not only contact sports which have become the focus of public attention and apprehension. Three weeks ago, I went to the ballet at the Royal Opera House. Before it began, the house manager came forward and said that two of the dancers had collided at the matinee that day and had mild concussion. Previously, there would not have been an issue, but the manager said that he was very sorry but they were unable to dance tonight and the ballet was cancelled. In the old days, it would have been on with the show.

We have to be very careful now. This is a game-changing period. We cannot ignore advice, and we have to be sensible. The Government must take their responsibilities keenly. We do not want to spoil or lose the beauty and wonder of our sport, but we must ensure that people taking part are fully protected. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

16:40

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for tabling the debate today. As a couple of other noble Lords have admitted, I also have to admit that this is not an issue that I knew a great deal about prior to this debate but, now that I have looked into it, I agree with him that this is a serious problem. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government are acting to address the issue.

As the noble Lord has pointed out, growing awareness has occurred because of very sad deaths, particularly among several young people. It is particularly sad when that happens on a school playing field, where pupils ought to be properly supervised and protected by the highest standards of safety protocols. Parents should be able to feel assured that their children are being looked after in that context.

However, there is also growing awareness of the more insidious and widespread threat of longer-term damage for those who play sports, particularly professional sports on a regular basis. It is becoming increasingly clear that a number of sports players who have suffered concussion on a repeated basis are suffering from dementia and other longer-term brain issues. That is obviously a particular cause for concern. While it might not be possible to eradicate the danger completely, we owe it to amateur and professional sports men and women to invest in research to understand the dangers better; to provide rules for safe play; to ensure that staff are educated in diagnosis and response; and to ensure that there are strict regulations regarding return to play.

What does this mean in practice? First, we should welcome the latest Zurich consensus statement on concussion, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, which provides a well informed and practical set of recommendations for those involved in the healthcare of sports men and women. Their advice provides diagnostic tools about what should happen should concussion be suspected, and emphasises the importance of standard emergency management procedures to ascertain the extent of the injury.

Importantly, the advice recommends that it should never be permitted for a player to return to play on a day where concussion is suspected, not least because, even if they get up and say, “I feel all right”, or if their mum and dad say, “Come along, pull yourself together and get back on the field”, there may be post-injury damage that is not immediately apparent. This is a particular challenge in high-level high-contact games such as rugby and football, where both the player and the medical team may be keen to downplay the injury and allow the player back on the field. However, as evidence grows of the longer-term health risks, it becomes more apparent that we need strict enforcement of the rules on the principle about returning to play.

The guidance that I have just referred to also makes it clear that any return to play should be on a graduated basis—over a period of a week is recommended—while tests continue. Again we need to ensure that this approach becomes standard practice. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether his department is taking on board the Zurich conference recommendations and what discussions are being held with the Department of Health to ensure that health professionals are more aware of the dangers of this type of sporting injury and understand the signs that they should look for.

Secondly, we need a clear set of rules specific to children and adolescents, recognising the particular health dangers for this group whose brains can swell uncontrollably after a single bang on the head. All schools need to be aware of the dangers and the steps that need to be followed immediately an injury is suspected. Every PE teacher should be trained in the assessment procedures, and should be expected to carry a card that lists the nine red-flag symptoms that warrant urgent action. Parents and governors should be expected to check that the necessary staff training and awareness has taken place and should have a system for monitoring the responses to sporting accidents, as well as rules for rest, rehabilitation, and return to play. I agree with many of the points about the improvements in school procedures made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Will the Minister give details of any discussions held between his department and the Department for Education about the need to raise standards of care in sporting accidents, specifically on school premises?

Thirdly, at the professional end of sports, all players and coaches should be trained to understand the dangers of concussion and its diagnosis. This should follow the initiative already taken by the rugby union, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred, and should extend to other sports. This is increasingly necessary in the light of the rising number of concussions that have been recorded per 1,000 hours of play since 2011. Andy Hazell, who was forced to retire from England rugby after failing to recover from a concussion injury, rightly made this point, which was echoed by the noble Lord:

“Players are getting bigger and faster, and the collisions are getting a lot bigger”,

so the challenges in this particular sport remain high. It is not just rugby union, though; concussion remains the most common injury in premiership football. Training and awareness for both players and coaches across all sports have to be key to improving safety, so will the Minister give details of discussions held with the governing bodies to roll out a programme of training for players and coaches across the spectrum for all sports?

Lastly, there needs to be a review of what further preventive measures can be undertaken. It is not good enough to say that these games are inherently dangerous and that this is the nature of the sport. Where changes can be made to the rules to protect players from dangerous practices, they should be introduced. Most sporting rules are not set in stone; they are constantly being reviewed and updated by their governing bodies. For example, rugby union rules have been regularly updated to provide greater protection for individual players without taking away any excitement of the game, and that can be done across the board in other sports. We should be asking all sports bodies to review their rules to see what further steps can be taken to limit impact on the head, and what penalties should be introduced against those who flout the rules.

We should also be encouraging more research into helmets and other head protection to ensure that the best possible guards are available and permitted in the games. Will the Minister reassure us that dialogue is continuing with sports bodies to encourage research into safety equipment and to develop safer rules of play? Will he give serious consideration to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for a meeting to discuss the establishment of a national research centre? I thought that he made the case very well in his contribution.

The solution to many of the problems that we debate in this House is better liaison between departments and more joint working, and that is certainly true in this debate. The solutions lie in better education, better awareness among heath professionals and more responsible sports governing bodies. I hope that the Minister is able to persuade us that he is taking all these issues on board, and I look forward to hearing what the department is doing to liaise effectively and improve performance on this important issue.

16:48

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate on such an important subject. I thank noble Lords for this illuminating debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Storey acknowledged at the outset of their speeches, participating in sports greatly benefits individuals and society, but we must ensure that risks are minimised and that appropriate medical treatment is available to all.

Any head injury sustained on the sports field must be treated seriously. Instances of serious injury are, thankfully, low, with many patients recovering fully without special intervention. However, a minority experience complications that must be minimised or avoided with early detection and appropriate action. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke movingly about the tragic death of Ben Robinson and about his brave parents.

Instances of concussion are undoubtedly of concern to governing bodies. From what I have seen, I believe that they take this matter increasingly seriously, and responsibly. The Football Association and other sports with experience of head injuries, such as rugby, American football and ice hockey, are working together to establish appropriate internal guidance. This point was raised by my noble friend Lord Addington. The equestrian community, to which my noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Moynihan referred, is very much at the forefront of this. We need to ensure that the experiences of the equestrian world are incorporated into what other sports are doing.

The FA rules on head injuries are extensive but, in essence, a player suffering a head injury must leave the field of play and may then return only if he is given medical clearance to do so. My noble friend Lord Addington referred to the amateur and community level of sport—what I would call the grass-roots end of the game—where a medic may not be present. There, the default guidance to all affiliated clubs in the FA is that the player cannot resume play, and the reintroduction of the player to football in the following weeks should be tightly controlled. The FA emergency aid certificate provides club representatives and volunteers with crucial skills and gives prominence to head injuries and concussion.

As the leading body on concussion management in sport, the Rugby Football Union works proactively with the International Rugby Board and independent experts to raise awareness, stay at the forefront of research and promote best practice, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred. My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned the importance of global exchanges of experience. I have the leaflet produced in Scotland and supported by Scottish Rugby, the Scottish FA and sportscotland, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, referred, entitled, If In Doubt, Sit Them Out. Rugby has taken specific steps to reduce risk in the game and these messages are being cascaded to clubs.

My noble friend Lord Storey referred to the “Don’t be a HEADCASE” initiative, which educates players and coaches—it is very important to mention coaches as well—below professional level to recognise and remove players with concussion. Some 200,000 concussion awareness cards have been distributed, and posters have been sent to every member club and newsletters to every member school. The “HEADCASE” website has also been adopted by the Medical Officers of Schools Association. The RFU’s first-aid course for volunteers, coaches and officials also gives prominence to concussion. Its pitch-side immediate trauma care course for healthcare professionals also includes specific concussion training.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly raised the important issue of safety within schools. Many young people engage in sport at school. Indeed, the Department for Education expects schools to provide a safe environment for their pupils and they must ensure that their training includes child safety and well-being. There is, of course, also the DfE advice on health and safety. Indeed, the Association for Physical Education and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents provide professional advice to schools on how to manage activities safely and reduce the risk of injuries. My noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Storey mentioned that advice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly referred to the need for dialogue. DCMS Ministers meet DfE Ministers monthly as part of the ministerial board on PE and sport. The board also includes external partners, such as the Association for PE, that play a lead role in health and safety in PE lessons. The departments continue to work together to ensure that schools have the necessary resources to deliver high-quality PE and sport, including through professional external partners such as the Association for PE, and provide guidance and advice on ensuring the safety and well-being of their pupils when playing sport. The Association for PE guidance on safe practice in physical education and sport is available online through the Department for Education. This comprehensive guide provides examples of issues that schools should consider in risk management for school sport, and advice on managing and applying safe practice.

All sports governing bodies working with schools should ensure that participation takes place in a safe environment. All national governing body coaches working in schools should obtain the level 2 coaching standard, which includes basic first-aid skills as a minimum requirement. Indeed, as part of the school games initiative, in which around 17,000 schools take part, national governing bodies have developed competition formats designed to ensure that schools can provide safe, meaningful and appropriate competition to all pupils regardless of age, ability or disability. As to guidance on sports-related concussion, the national governing bodies and schools do good work in disseminating advice to prevent injury and improve pitch-side care. However, it is clear from the examples given today that undoubtedly more needs to be done.

At an international level, my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to the Zurich consensus of 2012. I am pleased to acknowledge and endorse what the noble Baroness said about the welcome for this statement, which of course forms part of the learning that is increasingly being developed in the area of head injury. This outlines that when an individual shows any symptoms of concussion they must either be assessed on site by a licensed healthcare provider using standard emergency management principles or be safely removed from practise or play for urgent referral to a physician. The statement also highlights that a player with diagnosed concussion should not be allowed to return to play on the day of injury; that sufficient time and adequate facilities should be provided for the appropriate medical assessment, both on and off the field; and that the final determination regarding a diagnosis of fitness to play should be a medical decision.

Standards in sport and exercise medicine are set and maintained by the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine, a faculty of the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians. The faculty works to develop and promote the medical specialty of sport and exercise medicine, and oversees the training and assessment of doctors working in this discipline. In November last year, the faculty outlined key messages of concussion management in sport at all sporting events for athletes of all ages.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about advice to health professionals. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, established by the Government to provide evidence-based clinical advice, issued updated guidance last month to support clinicians on the diagnosis and treatment of head injuries, including concussion. The faculty helped to develop this guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the rules for children and adolescents in these matters. The recent clinical guidance, CG176, is on the Triage, assessment, investigation and early management of head injury in infants, children and adults. So the guidance refers to it all.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan raised the issue of a research centre. The Department of Health’s National Institute for Health Research is supporting a research project in Birmingham that is looking at the effects of repetitive concussion on athletes from sports such as rugby, football, cycling and gymnastics. The institute has awarded a research professorship to Peter Hutchinson at the University of Cambridge to study head injury. The institute at the moment has an annual budget of over £1 billion and I hope that this will be an important resource. I shall of course be pleased to have a meeting with my noble friend to discuss his proposal and see how best we can all help on these important matters.

There is so much more to say. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned guidance. A lot of this further public awareness, which is so important, is on the NHS Choices website.

Concussion is one of the most complex injuries to assess, diagnose and manage. Clinicians will make a diagnosis on a case-by-case basis, using their training and clinical judgment, and take into account the individual circumstances of each case. Much has been said in this debate. If there are any outstanding points that I have not raised, I will write to your Lordships. It is important to say that I have consulted officials from all three departments in preparation for this debate. It is clear that all three are working together. UK Sport, as part of DCMS, is working with the governing bodies. The system is working, but I think we can always work better. It is important that individuals engaged in sport, which is such a force for good and benefits society so much, are safe and secure. We must make sure that participation is in the right environment and that, in the event of injuries, all steps are taken to secure a full recovery.

Young People: Suicide

Thursday 27th February 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:02

Asked by

[Lord Eames]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the levels of suicide among young people in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, each year in the United Kingdom, between 600 and 800 young people aged 15 to 24 take their own lives. Under the age of 35, the number rises to more than 1,700. In England and Wales, around 24,000 attempted suicides are made by 10 to 19 year-olds. To put this in another way, as appeared recently in the national press, that represents one every 20 minutes.

In Northern Ireland, since the signing of the Belfast agreement, the number of suicides almost equals the number of killings during the years of our Troubles. Professor Tomlinson of Queen’s University has concluded that the steep increase in the Province’s suicide figures is accounted for in part by those who lived through the Troubles as children in the 1970s—some of the worst years of our violence.

These are truly shocking figures. The statistics from across the United Kingdom are the reason for my Question to the Government this evening. Last week’s release of the latest UK suicide statistics shows a welcome decrease in the number of young people under the age of 35 who took their own lives during 2012 compared with the previous year: 1,625 compared with 1,746 in 2011. This fact is welcomed by the many charities that do such valuable work among young people. I will quote the words of the chief executive of one of those charities, PAPYRUS Prevention of Young Suicide. He said:

“While we welcome this downward trend, suicide remains the highest cause of death for men and women in the 15 to 34 age group in England and Wales.”

Taken against the figures for suicide in the United Kingdom as a whole across all age groups, it might seem as if I am asking noble Lords to consider a small proportion of this tragic problem. However, any of us here or further afield who in our professional lives have seen first-hand the emotions of parents and families where a young person has succeeded in taking their own life, or indeed attempted to do so, have little doubt of the impact on family life and community reaction.

So what are we talking about in this debate? A future of possibilities, a lifetime of promise and usefulness cut short; shattered hopes unfulfilled; hopes never realised. There are the inevitable questions, none of which have easy answers: why, how, and could it have been prevented? Then there is the agony of parents—“Where did we go wrong?”. Much research over the years has been devoted to seeking answers to those questions. That research has produced a complex and at times contradictory picture. It has spoken of broken homes and family relationships, drug and alcohol abuse, mental and emotional conditions, bullying, the influence of the social network on vulnerable lives, and the impact of certain aspects of television and some films that seem to cheapen the gift of life and paint a picture of the glorification of self-inflicted sacrifice of life.

However, a single fact emerges: each case represents individual circumstances and needs. Therein, I suggest, lies the problem, not just for government but for society. Prevention calls for a multifaceted and multidimensional approach. It calls for many disciplines to work in collaboration—social services, the medical profession, charities and the churches, to name but a few—and for a sharing of information. However, research is expensive, and in today’s economic climate many charities ask about government priorities in this field.

The recently published Preventing Suicide in England: One Year On was the first annual report on the cross-government outcomes strategy to save lives. Of the regions of the UK, Scotland, with its “Choose Life” campaign, was well resourced and had a clear implementation strategy, with a 20% target to reduce the rate of suicide. In Northern Ireland, some £7 million is allocated annually to suicide prevention, but here in England there is concern on the part of charities when comparisons are made with Scotland and Northern Ireland. PAPYRUS claims that had there been as clear a strategy and sense of purpose as in Scotland, probably 814 lives could have been saved. There is a genuine feeling that the Government have not granted new resources to deliver their strategy and have failed to present a clear implementation strategy. That may be the view of one charity, but I found that it is shared by others. Equally, there is a growing concern that in various parts of the country children and adolescent mental health services are seriously underresourced to meet the growing demands on their services.

I could point to many more aspects of this tragic scene but time permits me to mention only two. First, how accurate is the picture we have of the enormity of this problem? In a coroner’s court, a suicide verdict cannot be given for those under 10 years of age. That means that many of the figures published tell only part of the tragedy. Equally, how can we gain an accurate figure of those children attempting suicide or inflicting self-harm?

There is one option that I suggest could be followed and would be welcomed. There is an urgent need to change the burden of proof used by coroners to reach a suicide conclusion. The continued use of the criminal standard of proof is surely unacceptable in this day and age. It contributes immensely to what so many of us refer to as the stigma surrounding suicide—a stigma that a lot of us feel inhibits many from seeking help.

I will end on a positive note. There has been a general welcome for the support of the Department of Health and the Royal Colleges for the sharing of information in a suicidal crisis. However sensitive though the issue may be—and I fully accept the sensitivities of patient confidentiality—many support the words of the chief executive of PAPYRUS:

“The duty of patient confidentiality should not be allowed to outweigh the chance of saving someone’s life”.

I hope that this debate, short though it is, will give the Minister ample opportunity to reflect on some of the challenges that we know are there in everyday life across the UK, and to put on record the Government’s reaction.

17:12

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord on securing this debate on a critical and all too often overlooked subject. It is a source of huge pain for all those concerned, not just from the loss of life but for the family, friends and community in which the individual lived. A traumatic, violent death is bad, but when it is self-inflicted it is hugely confusing.

Of course, suicide is historically fraught with stigma—not least, I do not need to tell the noble and right reverend Lord, in the church. Some 20 years ago, when I had to formulate the “Health of the Nation” strategy, there were five areas where we wanted to see improvement, which the health service or government departments could not deliver but which required the co-operation of the community and the charities. Under mental health, my targets in 1992 were indeed reducing the overall suicide rate by at least 15% by 2000 and reducing the suicide rate of severely mentally ill people by at least 33% by then. However much prejudice there was against mentally ill patients at that time, the greatest danger that they posed was to themselves, and the rate of those officially receiving mental health care was appalling.

I do not want to encroach on the area of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, but in today’s environment the terrible loss of life in young offender institutions is of great concern, as is the extraordinary influence of the internet, which in one way can be a source of befriending those at risk of suicide but, it seems, has somehow been distorted, misused and abused to actually precipitate suicide events. It is my view that, rather like when the Member of Parliament for Worthing was very preoccupied with reducing road accidents, there was a time when more young people lost their lives in road traffic accidents. Now, of course, the figure for suicide is higher, and has been for some time.

A campaign to tackle that could not be done just by allocating money. I fall out with the noble and right reverend Lord for simply thinking that charities need more money so that they can abuse the Government further for not giving them more money. The answer here is more subtle and requires broad ownership.

In the voluntary sector I want to commend Cruse Bereavement Care, of which I am a patron. It provides support for those whose relations and friends have taken their own lives. As the noble and right reverend Lord touched on, the result is intense anger—how could the individual have done it?—shame and isolation. You can tell somebody that your relation died of cancer, but it is still very difficult to say it of suicide. There is guilt—what more could we have done? There is confusion—why?—and endless reproach. It is very hard to achieve a sense of peace when a close relation has taken their own life. As we know, there are all too many in our parliamentary family whose children have done that.

The parents of Charlie Waller set up a wonderful charity when their son took his life in 1998. It works with health, education and the private sector on tackling depression and giving practical advice to people whose children and friends might be thinking of suicide. These people might think, “If I mention suicide, will the individual go over the top and take their own life?”. Many people are uncertain what the toolbox is. Traditionally GPs were particularly poorly equipped in mental health skills, but they are improving.

I congratulate the Government very warmly. I have looked closely at the suicide prevention strategy. I think it is a tremendous step forward. It is in the context of the “No health without mental health” keystone of government policy in relation to health. I am not sure it is just a question of more money. I am sure that it is constantly reminding us that this is a critical issue, a serious threat to life that people should not be afraid to discuss and draw to other people’s attention. For that, again, I praise the noble and right reverend Lord.

17:16

[Baroness Linklater of Butterstone (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for arriving late. If it is the Minister’s feeling that I should not continue, having missed a very large part of the opening speech, which I bitterly regret, I will sit down.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

It is the normal convention to hear the person who is moving the Motion, so I think my noble friend knows my advice in the matter. It is really a matter for her to consider.

[Baroness Linklater of Butterstone]

I will go on. I will focus on suicide among young people in the criminal justice system. They are the most disadvantaged and damaged in our society, with enormous mental health needs while being in the care of the state—our care. We lack adequate skills to recognise and understand the degree of the vulnerability of many of these young people, with the result that, since 2000, 282 children and young people have committed suicide while in custody. Untold numbers of others have tried but did not succeed.

One example is that of a 19-year-old girl with no previous convictions and a long history of self-harm who set fire to her mattress as an act of self-harm and was remanded in custody for arson with intent to endanger life—her own. She was recognised as having a personality disorder but could not be sectioned because she was deemed to be untreatable, so she continued to self-harm until she strangled herself to death. Meanwhile, her twin sister, also a self-harmer, found appropriate support in a therapeutic community.

Prison staff greatly need training and skills to understand better the needs of this very vulnerable group, but so do the Government, as their plans demonstrate. Hence, although restraint is now understood to be hugely distressing for these children, future plans, under the new Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, will allow restraint to be used by prison officers if their orders are not followed. Places at secure children’s homes—the one source of real security—are now going to be reduced by 17%, and fortified schools will cater for children who offend. A huge secure training college taking 320 young offenders—the antithesis of what these children need—is being planned. Young people over the age of 18, who are indeed just as needy and immature, will be left only the option of prison. Vulnerability is an explicit element in remand decisions in the court but not, amazingly, when it comes to sentencing, apart from mitigation if imprisonment is being considered. Crucially, sentencers too must be made more aware of what provision is locally available to them and what is appropriate for children in such desperate straits.

I am delighted that there is going to be an independent review into deaths in custody, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. It must include children as well as those over 18 if they are to have a chance. Children’s lives depend on our getting plans for them right. Prison is for the most violent, dangerous and prolific offenders in society, not vulnerable children who are at risk of taking their own lives.

17:20

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames on obtaining this debate. As was forecast by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has done, I shall focus on young people in custody. I am conscious that what I am going to say may not strictly be the province of the Minister, but I hope very much that in the context of this important debate he may relay some of what I am going to say to his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.

In 2012 I launched a report by the Prison Reform Trust and the charity INQUEST, titled Fatally Flawed: Has the State Learned Lessons from the Deaths of Children and Young People in Prison? The answer to that question was clearly no. Of the figures that my noble friend gave, 46 of this age group died in custody by their own hand between January 2011 and January this year. This report showed that there is commonality between the children who had committed suicide. They all had multiple disadvantages: substance abuse, mental health difficulties, learning disabilities, ADHD, special educational needs and personality and conduct disorders, plus all the other neglect.

Added to that, one has to remember that the adolescent brain has not fully formed at this stage, and cognitive behaviour and the development process are not completed until, possibly, the mid-20s. Therefore the problems that young people face are first, acute, and secondly, different from those of adults.

Last week the Youth Justice Board published the report Deaths of Children in Custody: Action Taken, Lessons Learnt. This was the result of long analysis, and it included the conclusion that the Youth Justice Board must work with providers of custody to enable them better to understand how to support children who are at risk of being suicidal or self-harming. There are other factors in this, but the clear finding was that there were common features in all the reports on all the suicides of this group, which surely gave an opportunity to identify common solutions.

Having called for an independent review and having had that call rejected by the Ministry of Justice, when I raised a Question about this three weeks ago I was disturbed to hear that the review to be carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, will not include children. This was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. Well, why on earth will children not be included? The factors include, inadequacy of management in the custodial centres, inadequacy of staff training, multi-agency failure in communicating individual vulnerabilities and needs, and failure to listen to children. There is also failure to circulate and implement recommendations which have been laid down in countless reports by the ombudsman and others, and recommendations made by coroners in inquests under Rule 43 of the Coroners’ Rules.

The Ministry of Justice’s reasons for rejecting the report were that, instead, it would have internal reviews by Ministry of Justice agencies; it would have discreet specialist reports into such things as the use of force; it would have better publication of information; and it would try to expand the scope of the law governing inquests. That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this debate, which is the prevention of children committing suicide, particularly in custody. I therefore ask the Minister to do all that he can to persuade his colleagues to include children in the review by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, so that, among other things, it can include the Youth Justice Board report which contains many of the factors that it will need to carry for a slightly younger part of the same age group.

17:25

[The Lord Bishop of Lichfield]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for initiating this debate.

The Association for Young People’s Health recently published its key data on adolescence. At present, the statistics show that the levels of self-harm are relatively stable, although for such a sensitive topic there is likely to be low reporting. It is clear that girls are at least three times more likely to self-harm than boys; on the other hand, suicide is much more prevalent among young males, particularly those aged between 20 and 24. This coincides with the evidence from ChildLine. Numbers have fallen fractionally in more recent years but the report questions whether this will continue.

How this correlates with child well-being needs careful consideration. We all remember the United Nations report about the unhappiness of children in this country. ChildLine reports that the number of children contacting it about suicidal feelings has risen for the third year running, including a rise of 33% in the last year. Overall, child well-being in the UK, according to the United Nations, has improved from 21st out of 21 to 16th out of 29 countries. Economic reasons have been stated and there is much correlation with the commentary from the Association for Young People’s Health.

Clearly the motives towards suicide are varied but the underlining factor seems to be lack of self-worth. This is underlined by the evidence of high rates among minority groups. I shall say a word about that later. Whether or not bullying is a component, although often it is, the social isolation and lack of affirmation which these young people feel are key components. It is both encouraging and concerning that more young people are contacting ChildLine about this. Obviously it is good that they are communicating, but bad because they say that when they have rung up other places or have been online, they have not really felt the understanding or acceptance that they were hoping for. All this shows that we, as a society, may not be providing sufficient support in the early days when these young people’s foundations in relational networks are initially developed.

I have time to mention two particular topics in relation to this. First, bullying is often directed at those who are different and it is well known that disability frequently gives rise to despicable behaviour in others. This is starting to appear insidiously in the area of assisted suicide. Recently a young man in Northern Ireland telephoned a radio phone-in to complain that since the increasing coverage of assisted suicide cases, he had noticed a change in people’s attitudes towards his own motor neurone disease, that he was being asked with increasing regularly if he had considered suicide. This shows, if nothing else, that the messages we give young people about their self-worth and their dignity as human beings are crucial.

Secondly, on asylum seekers and refugees, many children from these groups suffer high levels of mental health issues, which is unsurprising given that many of them have experienced hugely traumatic events. Add to this their poverty, homelessness, practical and emotional insecurity, let alone the hostility from the natives, it is not surprising that levels of well-being and self-worth are significantly diminished.

The conclusion of all this is that a society will be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members, a matter over which all of us have deep concerns. Let us at least seek and do all we can to make sure that those who are struggling, or who are different, do not go on falling through these gaps.

17:30

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and right reverend Lord for obtaining this valuable debate. I also declare an interest, of which I am very proud, as chairman of the advisory board for the Samaritans. I want to talk about how both government and the private sector are working to try to reduce levels of suicide. I will focus upon the internet and the need for free phone numbers to break down access to help and support, particularly among young people.

There has been considerable debate in recent weeks about the influence of the internet and social networking sites on young people vulnerable to suicide. The truth is, it is much more difficult to reduce access to potentially harmful information when it is online. The Samaritans has been focusing on this for a number of years, and its experience shows that the most effective approach is to both expand the sources of support to vulnerable people online and also to encourage organisations which run highly popular sites to develop responsible practices and to promote sources of support.

In pursuing this approach, the Samaritans have worked in partnership with major companies to develop practical initiatives to support people at risk of suicide online. In November 2010, an initiative was launched in partnership with Google which adds a new feature to search results. The Samaritans helpline number and a highly visible telephone icon is now displayed above normal Google search results when people in the UK use a number of search terms related to suicide. We have also launched a pioneering new scheme in partnership with Facebook which allows the 30 million Facebook users in the UK to get help for a friend they believe is struggling to cope or feeling suicidal. People who are concerned about a friend on Facebook can report suicidal content such as status updates or wall posts through the help centre page on the website. The distressed person then receives an email from the Samaritans offering to open a line of communication with a volunteer so that they can access our services.

We also expect organisations that run these websites, such as social networking sites and online news media outlets to take action to reduce the availability of harmful content hosted on their sites. As part of the Samaritans media monitoring work, we contact newspaper staff directly to suggest amendments to the online version of articles with potentially harmful content.

One of the main difficulties in reducing the risk of suicide online is that the current research on the internet and suicide is extremely limited. The Samaritans are therefore working on new research in partnership with the University of Bristol, funded, I am pleased to say, by the Department of Health’s policy research programme on how people with suicidal feelings use the internet and the impact that this has on suicidal behaviour. We are hopeful that this research will provide new evidence to help to inform policy and best practice.

However, an important element of suicide prevention is that support is immediately available to people in distress, and that people know how to access it. The Samaritans national helpline number currently uses an 0845 prefix, which means that, while calls from landline phones are relatively inexpensive, calls from a mobile phone can cost considerably more. Several years ago, the European Commission decided that certain services of social value should have the same memorable telephone numbers in all member states, and should be free. In 2009, therefore, Ofcom awarded such a number to the Samaritans, which has since launched a successful pilot of this new free number in limited areas.

The problem is funding. At the moment, thankfully, the Big Lottery Fund is funding the rollout of the free-call service in just 10 areas, targeting those most in need of a free-to-caller service. This will allow Samaritans to understand how a free-to-caller number targeting people in socioeconomically deprived areas will change the nature, volume and pattern of calls. But the issue that Samaritans urgently needs to resolve is how to make the service financially sustainable in the long term.

Here I turn to a debate on this subject that I initiated in your Lordships’ House last July. Following that debate and the very helpful, supportive response from my noble friend the Minister, the Department of Health agreed in principle to host a round-table meeting with the telecoms industry and Ofcom to discuss how the telecoms industry and others can fund free-call for the longer term. This was discussed when the CEO of Samaritans met Norman Lamb in October and it was agreed that this meeting should take place. A suggested list of stakeholders has been submitted to the Department of Health. We understand that the meeting is still in the pipeline, but progress is slow and there is still no date for the meeting in the diary. I urge my noble friend the Minister to follow this up.

17:35

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a co-chair of the bullying APPG and a patron of Red Balloon. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for instigating this debate so that we can discuss the root cause of so many avoidable deaths in young people. He was quite right to quote PAPYRUS’s data on the number of attempted suicides by young people: one every 20 minutes. That is three during this short debate.

The 2012 government report Preventing Suicide in England identified nine categories needing customised care, including children, those with untreated depression, LGBT people and ethnic minority groups. Although I am pleased by the emphasis placed on children as a separate category, we do well to remember that children can fall into most of the other groups as well.

A major factor leading to suicide is bullying. It is shocking that 69% of children in the UK report being bullied. The National Centre for Social Research report on bullying showed that each year 16,000 children are out of school long-term with depression because of bullying, and that there are at least 25 confirmed suicides as a result of bullying, but there are probably many more that do not meet the criminal standard that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, spoke of earlier.

Early intervention is vital. Most children do not suddenly decide to kill themselves. ChildLine says that there has been a,

“trend towards younger and younger children dabbling in self-harm, with a 50% increase among those aged 12 in the last year alone”.

However, even younger children are at risk. Last year nine year-old Aaron Dugmore hanged himself after being targeted by a gang of older bullies at his school simply because he was new. Ayden Keenan-Olson, aged 14, overdosed on prescription pills after homophobic and racist bullying by his classmates. He had reported up to 20 instances of bullying since joining his school but no action was taken. He eventually bypassed security settings on his computer to research suicide.

That raises the issue of online suicide forums and cyberbullying. Later this year, family-friendly content filters will be set automatically for new broadband users. However, most kids are so tech-savvy that they are able to bypass these settings in minutes. There is much more to fear from the “dark web” free of filters than from known, visible sites, so we must educate and support our young people to protect themselves.

The launch of Zipit, ChildLine’s first app for smartphones, is great news. It is packed with humorous tips for teens and advice to help them to cope with flirting and messaging, equipping them to protect themselves from online sexting, bullying and trolling. In the two months since its launch, more than 45,000 young people have signed up.

Frankly, CAMHS are struggling to deliver mental health services or reduce the number of young people killing themselves. Pressure on services can mean many months’ wait for urgent appointments, or having to travel 300 miles to get a bed in a tier 4 clinic. I heard on Monday of a child who had had to go from Birmingham to Glasgow for such a bed. I ask the Minister what is being done to speed up access to CAMHS facilities and to minimise the distances that must be travelled in instances of urgent child referrals. The coalition Government are rightly demanding parity of esteem for mental health services, but we have yet to see it happen.

I want to end on a more positive note, although it may not seem that way at the start. First Capital Connect asked to work with Red Balloon, a specialist bullying charity, after three bullied children threw themselves in front of trains. One was a 14 year-old ballerina and the second two were a young Goth couple who jumped together in front of a train. Red Balloon works with suicidal bullied children, offering intensive recovery and education support so that children can return to mainstream school and to their friends and society. However, only a handful of places are available nationally, and CAMHS beds are also limited, not to mention the constant problems around funding. My worry is this: does that reflect the value we place on these tragically short lives? Much more is needed to get early support to youngsters before depressive thoughts of death turn into the horror of young suicide, which affects family and friends for ever.

17:40

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in expressing gratitude to the noble and right reverend Lord for securing a debate on this tragic and important subject. I want to highlight one particular group of young people for whom suicide and attempted suicide is a very real issue. Gay boys and girls are vulnerable because they are struggling with how to come to terms with their sexual orientation and they can face an unacceptable degree of bullying because they are different from others in their school or local community.

I am indebted to Stonewall, as is so often the case in these debates, for providing me with some deeply disturbing figures. According to a study conducted for the organisation by Cambridge University two years ago, almost one in four lesbian, gay and bisexual young people say that they have tried to take their own lives. That is a truly shocking figure when compared with the estimate of 7% of young people in the general population. The same research showed that gay young people who are bullied are tragically much more likely to take their own lives. More than seven in 10 of those who suffer homophobic bullying contemplate suicide at some point, and half of them have symptoms consistent with clinical depression. Let me put these appalling figures into the human context. The Stonewall study highlights the case of a 15 year-old boy called Rabi, who reported as follows:

“The bullying went on for the whole five years of secondary school. I tried to fight back. I was depressed. I cut myself. I was on the verge of suicide. For one year, I came home every day crying into my mum’s arms”.

Rabi was lucky enough to be given the support that helped him get through it. One young man who did not was 14 year-old Essex schoolboy, Ayden Keenan-Olson, whose case has just been highlighted by my noble friend Lady Brinton. He was found dead in his bed by his father in Colchester almost exactly a year ago. His case was highlighted by the publication Pink News, which does an excellent job of campaigning in such crucial policy areas. As my noble friend said, Ayden, who had come out to his parents just a few months before his death, left two suicide notes outlining the homophobic and racist bullying he had experienced. He had been targeted with consistent violence, abuse and malicious allegations because of his sexuality and his Japanese origins.

Although huge strides have been made in recent years in the battle for equality for gay men and women, it is a sad fact that there is still too much homophobic bullying in some schools, much of it now done through the internet, which can all too often lead to tragedy. There are too many Aydens, but there need not be. There is a great deal that schools can do to turn the tide. Much of it is set out in Stonewall’s excellent “Education for All” packs, including schools having clear and promoted policies on tackling homophobic bullying, whether it is physical bullying or cyberbullying. It makes clear that school staff should be trained to spot problems and to provide young people with information and support to keep them safe, signposting them in the direction of professional help when they need it. It means that school nurses should make clear that young people can talk to them in confidence about their sexual orientation, and be aware, too, of the particular mental health issues they may face, intervening as necessary to support them. Local health services have a role to play in working alongside schools to focus on early intervention, a subject mentioned by my noble friend Lady Brinton, which is absolutely crucial because early intervention is the sort of thing that might have saved the life of a young man like Ayden. Local health services can also help train their staff on the particular issues that young gay boys and girls might face as they struggle with their identity.

When we passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act last year, with a huge majority in this House, many may have believed that the dark shadow of inequality, prejudice and intolerance was now behind us. It is a deeply regrettable fact that in too many communities those basest of human instincts are alive and well and, as we have heard, have deadly consequences. It will take many years to tackle that, but in the meantime we can and should do a great deal more to protect those who we know are most vulnerable—young people who are struggling because they are different. Will the Minister restate the Government’s strong commitment to tackling this issue and encouraging all schools and local health services to ensure that they have the policies and procedures in place to spot trouble, intervene where they can, and provide the support that too many frightened, lonely young people desperately need?

17:45

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent, albeit painful, short debate, for which I, too, thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. We have heard the devastating facts and figures. Each and every young life lost through suicide is a tragedy, of course, to the young person, but also, as has been said, to the family and friends who love them.

I am ashamed that in the 21st century in a wealthy developed country with so many advantages and where we know the effects of bullying behaviour, too many young people contemplate or attempt suicide, too often successfully. I recognise the strains and stresses in our society, where there is great pressure to succeed and where much is expected of individuals, but who are not always able to live up to their own expectations, let alone those of their peers or society. Feelings of inadequacy, of being different, can be made acute by the media, including social media. The report, Alone with My Thoughts, produced last year, showed that nearly one-third of young people have contemplated or attempted suicide. This is a shocking statistic that I discussed with a friend in the forest who works in mental health. She suggested that there needed to be better training for staff in schools to identify the difference between perceived lack of motivation and depression and between anxiety and apathy, and that more support was needed around low confidence and self-esteem, especially in the world of social networking, where cyberbullying is rife.

I also know from talking to students that there is a similar problem in some colleges and universities. The Government have a suicide prevention strategy which includes the development of an e-portal for children, young people and those working with them. This is welcome, but will the Minister say how he will ensure that young people and their teachers will know about it? I also wonder what training, if any, teachers have to enable them to identify those children with mental health needs or those who are being bullied. Should not all staff working with children and young people receive training in mental health, including suicide prevention training? Some excellent charities are working in this area, including YoungMinds, but they rightly say that, despite the Government’s rhetoric or good intentions, we are a long way from seeing parity between physical and mental health.

Young people’s mental health is a vital issue that must be prioritised. It is not acceptable that in 51 of England’s 58 NHS mental health trusts there were 350 under-18s admitted to adult wards in the first nine months of 2013-14. This marks a 36% increase on the previous 12 months. Will the Minister say what action the Government are taking to ensure that under-18s are not admitted inappropriately to adult psychiatric wards and that, when they are sent to young people’s units, they are not hundreds of miles from home? Young people aged 16 to 25 are going through a number of transitions. If they are in contact with mental health services, there is the additional transition from child and adolescent services to adult services. I would be grateful for an assurance that steps are being taken to ensure that adequate care and support is given at this difficult time. A difficult transition can make young people disengage with services, with the risk that their mental health problems will become entrenched and harder to treat.

The Prince’s Trust has produced an excellent report, Youth Index 2014, the message of which is clear: long-term unemployed young people are in desperate need of support. Some 40% of jobless young people say that they have faced symptoms of mental illness, including suicidal thoughts, feelings of self-loathing and panic attacks as a direct result of unemployment. I pay tribute to the extraordinary work of the Prince’s Trust, which is helping these young people, many of whom grow up in poverty and face an increased risk of mental health problems as a result. The same is said in a recent report by the Samaritans, which reports that there are systematic socioeconomic inequalities in suicide risk defined by job, class, education, income or housing. Whatever indicator is used, people in the lower positions are at a higher risk of suicide.

Some recent reports suggest that the changes the Government are making to social security, including the bedroom tax, are exacerbating or creating problems for people who are already struggling, so clearly it is important that the Government rapidly monitor the effect of the changes and take the requisite action. My friends in mental healthcare tell me that, as a consequence of the changes, the pressure on their services grows by the day with a tidal wave of referrals each week, including from young people. These people working in mental health are themselves overstretched, and they feel that no one is listening to and addressing their concerns.

The Government have a suicide prevention strategy and a mental health strategy, both of which are welcome. I look forward to hearing that they are being implemented and, most importantly, that they are adequately resourced.

17:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for raising this important issue, and for the valuable contribution made by all speakers today. The Government take the issue of suicide very seriously, and are working hard to reduce the number of people who take their own lives.

The suicide rate among teenagers is below that in the general population and has remained steady over the past few years. However, we know that this group is vulnerable to suicidal feelings, as has been made abundantly clear in this debate. The risk is greater when they have mental health problems or a behavioural disorder, misuse substances or alcohol or have experienced family breakdown, mental health problems or suicide in the family. However, any suicide is one too many.

Suicide is devastating for loved ones left behind, and it is especially tragic when the victim is a child or young person. That is why children and young people have an important place in our 2012 publication, Preventing Suicide in England: A Cross-Government Outcomes Strategy to Save Lives. The report identified those groups of children and young people who are thought to be particularly vulnerable, including looked-after children, care leavers, children and young people in the youth justice system and gay and lesbian young people.

The noble and right reverend Lord mentioned funding. This strategy is backed by £1.5 million of funding for research. One of the funded projects will be exploring the use of the internet in relation to suicidal behaviour and identifying priorities for prevention. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to continue working with the internet industry in the UK to keep people safe online and to promote access to positive support for all suicidal people, including children and young people.

Education is also key. A number of noble Lords have mentioned bullying, including my noble friend Lord Black. The Government have sent a very clear message to schools that all forms of bullying are totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated. The Department for Education is in the process of reviewing behavioural guidance, which will be made available to all teachers.

The new national curriculum will see children aged five to 16 taught about internet safety in a sensible, age-appropriate way, a really important step to help children and young people to understand some of the issues. Furthermore, the major internet service providers are working on a parental awareness campaign, due to launch in the spring. This aims to raise parents’ awareness of, and ability to effectively use, the filters that they provide, and to provide parents with information about how to keep their children safe online.

We have also been clear that social media sites need to take responsibility for inappropriate content that is made available on their sites, which includes images of self-harm and suicide. We expect social media companies to respond quickly to incidents of abusive behaviour and inappropriate content on their networks. This includes having easy-to-use reporting tools, robust processes in place to respond promptly when abuse is reported and, where appropriate, suspending or terminating the accounts of those who do not comply with the acceptable-use policies. The Minister for Culture, Communications and the Creative Industries met with a number of leading social media companies to discuss what more might be done to protect young people when they are online, and we will continue to discuss this and work with the social media companies.

It is good to report that the industry has already worked on positive initiatives in this area. I want to echo the tribute paid by my noble friend Lady Buscombe to the excellent collaborative work that Facebook and Google have done with the Samaritans’ mental health strategy. The Samaritans have been facilitating a call to action for suicide prevention in England. More than 50 national organisations have signed this call for action, committing to work together so that fewer lives are lost to suicide and to support those who are bereaved or affected by suicide. My noble friend prompted me on the issue of the promised round table. I reiterate to her that free-to-caller access to the excellent Samaritans service would be an important step forward. Work to set up that meeting is in hand, and a date will be fixed shortly.

The Samaritans have also been instrumental in developing media guidelines for the reporting of suicide. Those guidelines are aimed not only at journalists reporting suicide but also at authors and producers of television and film dramas. Research tells us that reports of suicide can lead to copycat suicides. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is important that any media reporting should be sensitive.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, mentioned stigma. The Government are very pleased to be supporting Time to Change, a campaign to end stigma and discrimination faced by people, including children and young people, with mental health problems. It is clear, thankfully, that attitudes towards mental illness are improving in the general public, with the latest national surveys showing continuing improvement. Any incidence of self-harm, however, must always be taken seriously. In all cases of self-harm, all noble Lords will agree that it is important for health professionals and others to intervene early, before it is too late.

Last month my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, with the Minister of State for Care and Support, launched the mental health action plan. Of the 25 actions, one relates to our commitments to change the way frontline services respond to self-harm and to ensure that no one experiencing a mental health crisis should ever be turned away from services.

I now turn to what the Government are doing to protect vulnerable young people in custody, an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Linklater and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It is very sad that three young people in custody took their own lives in 2011 and 2012. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice has established a working group to learn from these tragic deaths. The group has identified and disseminated the key learning points from the deaths, highlighting common themes and actions to be taken to prevent further deaths of children and young people. Additionally, a review of the assessment, care in custody and teamwork procedures for young people is being undertaken. I shall convey to my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice the points made so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

The Government strongly support the recommendations in the report of the Children’s and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum and the Chief Medical Officer’s report, Prevention Pays—Our Children Deserve Better. We are working with key partners to consider options for taking this important work forward, to look at the prevalence of mental health conditions in children and young people. The Government are very keen that all professionals who work with children and young people have access to information about mental health. I am delighted to tell my noble friend Lady Bottomley and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that my honourable friend the Minister for Care and Support is launching an interactive e-learning tool for children and young people’s mental health on 25 March. This is aimed at health professionals—teachers, social workers and others—who are not necessarily mental health specialists and who work with children and young people. I want to pay tribute to the consortium of organisations headed by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health for developing this exciting tool.

The mental health services for children and young people are very much in the Government’s sights. Between 2011 and 2015 we will be investing £54 million in children and young people’s improving access to psychological therapies, the CYP IAPT programme. This will give children and young people improved access to the best-evidenced mental health care.

My noble friend Lady Buscombe referred to the problem faced by children when they had a long distance to travel. Our aim must of course be to support children and young people with mental health problems near to where they live. Admission to hospital should be a last resort for a young person, quite clearly. We recognise the difficulty if people are treated away from home but the decision, inevitably, will depend on what facilities are available locally and the clinical needs of the individual.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, rightly pointed out that a multifaceted approach is needed. We completely support and agree with the need for such an approach. The role of the voluntary sector here is key and I pay tribute to the excellent work that is being done by the third sector—for example, by PAPYRUS, an organisation mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord, and by CALM, which supports families who are concerned about suicide or have been bereaved by it.

My noble friend Lady Linklater and others raised the vexed topic of self-harm, which should always be taken seriously. Child and adolescent mental health services are there to support children and young people who self-harm. There is evidence that self-harm is a symptom of stress and mental illness. Clinical care must always focus on these causes and on coping strategies rather than on the self-harm itself. In 2004, NICE published clinical guidance on the management of self-harm which covers the care that people who self-harm can expect to receive.

Finally, as we have debated frequently in this House, the Government are working towards parity of esteem between physical and mental health. We have been clear that there must be equal priority between mental and physical health services. One of the 24 objectives in the mandate to NHS England is to put mental health on a par with physical health and to close the health gap between people with mental health problems and the population as a whole. We expect the NHS to bear this in mind when taking decisions about how to spend NHS money on services for local people, including young people.

Committee adjourned at 6.02 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 27th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 27 February 2014.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

NHS: NICE-appraised Medicines

Thursday 27th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report of the NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care, Use of NICE appraised medicines in the NHS in England-2012, experimental statistics, which showed extensive variation in patients’ access to new innovative medicines.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I refer noble Lords to my health interests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, patients have a right to drugs and treatments that have been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that their doctor decides are appropriate for them. There can be many reasons for variation in use but we are determined to tackle unjustified variation where it exists.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that response. Does he agree that one of the conclusions of the report is that there can be a tenfold variation in the take-up of innovative new medicines that have been approved under the NICE technology appraisal programme? Given that it is a legal requirement for clinical commissioning groups to fund those treatments, as I understand it, what sanctions can be taken against commissioning groups which do not fund those treatments? What can patients do in each area if they are refused such treatments? Is there a process of appeal that they can take their concerns to?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, there is a process of appeal. Patients can go to their clinical commissioning group or, indeed, to NHS England and ask for the matter to be specially looked at. However, it is important to understand what these figures are and what they are not. They are not intended to be, and do not claim to be, a statement of whether certain drugs are being underprescribed or overprescribed in a particular area. One has to drill down into the reasons. In fact, when one does that, for most of the groups of medicines where it was possible to compare observed and predicted use, the report shows that use has increased over time, and we are introducing additional tools to allow the NHS to get to the heart of the reasons for variations in local areas.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister say what consideration the Government are giving to the availability of the highly expensive so-called orphan and ultra-orphan drugs that are now coming on stream, which are effectively treating many rare diseases?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this important class of drugs will be subject to a special evaluation process by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. That methodology has been worked through and over the coming months we will see NICE evaluating orphan medicines and medicines for highly specialised conditions to inform clinicians in the NHS and, where appropriate, provide a funding direction for those drugs.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may follow on from the Minister’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on clinical commissioning groups. The previous year’s report on appraised medicines provided a very helpful algorithm of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis. Will NICE and other organisations involved in these specialist medicines follow a similar algorithm to make it even clearer to CCGs where they should not step out of line but must follow clinicians’ advice?

[Earl Howe]

It is important to distinguish between a technology appraisal, where, if favourable, there is a clear funding direction for the NHS—in other words, it must fund the drug if the doctor thinks that it is appropriate for the patient—and a clinical guideline, where NICE issues best practice advice for the NHS. There is no funding direction attached to that. However, clinicians are expected to take account of NICE guidelines in everything that they do.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman-elect of University College London Partners, one of the designated academic health science partnerships. Is the noble Earl content that the funding arrangements to be put in place by NHS England for the 15 designated academic health science networks are appropriate and will ensure that they can discharge their substantial obligations under their licence agreement, including the adoption of NICE guidance among the populations for which they are responsible?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord asks a very important question. It is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper, which relates to a particular set of statistics. However, I can tell him that I am broadly satisfied with the level of funding for AHSNs, and NHS England has given its commitment to maintain its support for them going forward.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

If the appeal is to NHS England or the commissioning groups, does that mean that they have the right to overrule the decision that has been taken by NICE?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, patients have a right under the NHS constitution to access clinically appropriate drugs and treatments recommended by NICE technology appraisals. That is a legal right. If a prescriber has failed to adhere to that, a clinical commissioning group is bound to find in the patient’s favour. However, there are clearly individual circumstances for each case that need to be looked at. The key is that the patient is entitled to expect a transparent and fair process where the reasons for a decision are published.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Given that the noble Earl has just referred to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about access to new, innovative medicines, will he undertake to look at material which I have sent to him today from the Toronto-based mesothelioma research institute, which has developed new, innovative treatments for mesothelioma victims and may hold hope for some of the 2,200 who die of that horrific disease in this country every year?

[Earl Howe]

Mesothelioma is a devastating disease, and I certainly undertake to look at the material that the noble Lord has sent me.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that a new treatment has recently been licensed for advanced pancreatic cancer, offering the greatest improvement in survival of any such treatment in 17 years? Does he share my concern that it needs to be made available to sufferers from the disease as urgently as possible via the Cancer Drugs Fund while awaiting NICE approval?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, drugs which have not yet been assessed or approved by NICE are eligible for use under the Cancer Drugs Fund. I am pleased to say that the Government have made a total of £1 billion available under that fund and 44,000 patients have been treated under it. I appreciate the noble Lord bringing that particular drug to my attention and I undertake to look at it.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister realise the frustration that some clinicians have when there is a drug that gives a better quality of life to patients but they cannot give it to them?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, if a drug is licensed in this country, it is open to a clinician to prescribe it as long as their clinical commissioning group will fund it. There are local funding policies for drugs. I understand the noble Baroness’s point, but when a drug is assessed by NICE, it can be assessed for quality-of-life properties—that element will have been included in the assessment. Indeed, that is the reason why we have the process that NICE goes through.

Community Life

Thursday 27th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:14

Asked by

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is being done to mitigate the social and cultural consequences of the weakening of community life in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, community life is not weakening. Strong communities are shaping their own destiny across England, and we are supporting people in their efforts. The Government’s localist approach, for example, gives more power to communities and local councils, and communities are seizing the opportunities offered. One of our flagship programmes is the National Citizen Service. This year, 90,000 young people will deliver a community project through this service.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is it not the case, however, that one of the key factors in what is clearly a declining community vitality in this country, is the ever increasing volume of legislation pouring forth from this place, which tends to undermine and confuse the ordinary citizen, and is still running at the rate, after repeals, of about 10,000 pages of new statute law every year? That is more than I have been able to discover in any country in western Europe.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the Government are fully committed to removing unnecessary bureaucracy. Speaking specifically about DCLG, since 2010 it has enacted legislation which has, as I have already said, empowered citizens and local communities. The Localism Act 2011 is a good example. In January of this year, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that the Government have indeed met the Red Tape Challenge target to find 3,000 regulations to scrap and improve. Already more than 800 of the reforms have been implemented.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House how the big society is doing these days? We have not heard very much about it for the past couple of years. Will he give us an update? If the big society is prospering, the noble Lord’s question is redundant.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The big society—and society as a whole—is alive, well and kicking. We need only look around the country to see 5,000 community organisers trained in 2015; Community First; the Centre for Social Action; the Dementia Friends campaign; the Innovation in Giving Fund; the Citizen Service; and indeed the Big Society Awards, with more than 100 winners already announced. The big society is very much alive. Look around your local community and you will see it.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, much as I appreciate and applaud the national citizenship scheme, is it not time for the Government to encourage all young people to undergo community service and to qualify for a citizenship ceremony before they enter the adult world?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend raises an interesting point. It is important to ensure that the opportunities that are available to young people are shown to them. If we look at the take-up of the National Citizen Service, when it was launched in 2011, there were 8,500 young people involved. In the current year, there are 90,000. Next year, it will go up to 120,000. The estimates are that by 2016, 150,000 young people will be part of the National Citizen Service. It shows that when a scheme works for the country and it works for young people, there is a take-up. This scheme reflects that.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

Would the Minister agree that encouraging village shops is an excellent way of strengthening community life in the United Kingdom? I declare an interest as the owner of the Ewelme village store.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As someone who worked in local government for 10 years as a local councillor, I totally agree with those sentiments. The vitality of local businesses at a local level is something that this Government fully support and encourage.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, will the Minister join me in welcoming this morning’s announcement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that the Near Neighbours scheme—a very successful collaboration between faith groups and government—is being extended for a further two years? Does he also agree that the scheme is an excellent example of strengthening social cohesion in ways that are sensitive to local dynamics, and that it could serve as a model for communities up and down the United Kingdom?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The right reverend Prelate is of course right to raise the issue of the Near Neighbours scheme. It is a successful scheme in which the Church of England works with local communities, and it shows how communities and wider faith groups can come together. My noble friend who is sitting to my right famously said, “This Government does do God”. We work with people of all faiths across the country to ensure that communities are vibrant and working well together.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, if we believe that rights should be matched by responsibilities, should we not elevate, alongside the expectation that those of working age who are reasonably able to do so should be in gainful employment, a second expectation that those who can reasonably do so should commit themselves to a pattern of caring activity or some other activities useful to the community, on the basis that we do not want to live in a neoliberal society of atomised individuals but in a society founded on an older and better principle: namely, that we are members one of another?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Those are sentiments with which I totally agree. Perhaps I may give a very local example. I referred earlier to my time as a local councillor. I am delighted this week that, through an initiative which this Government have enabled, the community right to bid for community assets, Wimbledon Park Hall, which was shut by a local council, has just been revived. The local community, through local residents and the Wimbledon Park Residents Association, is working with the private sector to ensure that a community asset which was of and by the community will now function for the community.

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, it appears to me—

[Baroness Seccombe]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister join me in praising those people from all round the country who have gone to help farmers and others during this time of flooding?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend, as ever, raises a very important and valid point. I am sure that the sentiment that she expressed resonates with us all. It is a tribute to how, at a time of need in our great country, community spirit works well and is alive.

Vocational Training: Young People

Thursday 27th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:21

Asked by

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to equip young people with the skills necessary to enter the job market.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, declare an interest as chief executive of Tomorrow’s People.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps unlike the rest of your Lordships’ House, I had sight of this Question and there is a continuum here. We are reforming vocational education to ensure that young people can get the skills which employers value. We are implementing reforms to qualifications for 14 to 19 year-olds. We have introduced study programmes for 16 to 19 year-olds and traineeships for 16 to 23 year-olds, including work experience and the basic skills in English and maths which employers tell us young people need. These measures, alongside the youth contract, are enabling more young people to move into apprenticeships or indeed employment.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank the Minister for that response and I endorse the fact that these interventions are making a real difference to the lives of our young people. However, while interventions on their own are all good, in most cases it is the magic of the personal support that young people get which glues these things together and makes the real difference. How will the Government make sure that this holistic and seamless approach continues and grows to make the outcomes even more effective than they are?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, I pay tribute to my noble friend’s personal experience in this field. She is an example of how people can work at a local level to ensure that young people are given the opportunities that they require and deserve. Our priority is to ensure that students are offered high-quality and meaningful work experience as part of their post-16 education, which is both stretching and related to their career paths and realistically based on their prior attainment at age 16. All students aged 16 to 19, whether they are doing academic or vocational studies or a mix of both, are now expected to follow a study programme tailored to their prior attainment by the age of 16 and in line with their future career aspirations.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, as the growth in apprenticeship numbers is largely accounted for in the age range above 25 can the Government use the procurement process, on which many billions of pounds have been spent, to make it a condition of government contracts that apprentices are hired? Can the Government also counter the alarming trend in the number of apprentices not being paid the legal minimum wage?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Apprenticeships are a central part of what this Government seek to do to address some of the challenges that this country faces. We should all acknowledge that 985,000 apprenticeships have been created since the general election. As these apprenticeships evolve, we are working with employers across the country to ensure that they are effective for, and indeed reflective of, the needs of the people who are fulfilling them. The points the noble Lord makes will be taken on board as the way apprenticeships are presented evolves.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, there are four times as many 18 to 24 year-olds looking for work at the moment as there are in the 16 to 17 age group. Yet the Government’s policy on apprenticeships for 19 to 24 year-olds is to ask employers to pay half the costs of the learning framework. Many businesses, especially SMEs, will pause before taking on an apprentice because of this. Does the Minister agree that if this requirement were to be removed, it would hugely encourage many more young people to get into apprenticeships as well as giving them much more of a chance to succeed?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point, but I am sure many noble Lords are aware that the Government do support local businesses. Indeed, they have made additional funding available to small businesses that are looking to take on both trainees and apprentices.

On the age group that the right reverend Prelate mentioned, particularly 19 to 24 year-olds, in October 2013 the Government announced funding of an additional £20 million to support the expansion of traineeships, which are helping even more young people to get the skills and experience they need to get into full-time work.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the number of apprentices aged 16 to 18 has been falling, rather than rising, over the past few years? Yet we still have a million people of that age who are NEETs. In addition, the numbers entering into apprenticeships in both construction and engineering, where we have the greatest skills shortages, have been falling. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to encourage young people to go into those careers?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I have already mentioned traineeships, but if we look at the figures announced today on NEETs—those young people not in education, employment or training—they reveal that for the 16 to 18 age group this stands at 7.6%, the lowest since Government records began in this area in 2000. If we look at the wider group, the current percentage is 14.2%, which is the lowest since 2008.

My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister today made further announcements on how to encourage young people, how to ensure that career services work well across the country and how schools are an essential part of ensuring that career opportunities are made available. This whole package of reforms is providing the necessary steps for tackling the issue of youth unemployment, but more importantly providing young people with the opportunities they need to get into the employment sector.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

The number of apprentices who did not receive the legal minimum wage has increased by 45%. This is against the law. What are the Government doing about it?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government are adhering to the minimum wage. That has been made clear several times at the ballot box. The minimum wage is there for employers to follow and the Government are supporting it across the country.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the award-winning Building Lives Training Academy, set up by the founder of Lakehouse plc to provide construction sector apprenticeships for young people, leading to jobs in the sector, and what can the Government do to help such initiatives gain access to the start-up funding they need, which seems to be the greatest obstacle to their expansion?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Perhaps I may come back to the noble Lord on the first part of his question as I missed it. As I have already said, we believe it is important that the careers guidance service is working effectively, whether that is in academies or other schools within the sector. This morning my right honourable friend announced further initiatives in direct response to the Ofsted reports in this area, which demonstrated a need for schools to play a greater part in providing careers advice.

Ukraine

Thursday 27th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

11:30

Asked by

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of current developments in Ukraine.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Statement made by the Foreign Secretary on Monday, which was repeated in this House by my noble friend Lord Wallace, the Government have continued to follow events closely and have pursued engagement with international partners with a view to supporting Ukraine’s return to stability and sustainable reform. The Ukrainian Government should focus on reconciliation, urgent reforms and preparation for free and fair elections. All parties inside and outside Ukraine should avoid actions and rhetoric that inflame tensions.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does she share my concern about the escalating tensions in the Crimea and, indeed, along the Russian-Ukrainian border? In pursuit of defusing those tensions, will Her Majesty’s Government speak to the United Nations Secretary-General and ask him to appoint a special envoy to Ukraine who might have the confidence of the new Ukrainian Government, as well as the Russians, to help mediate and de-escalate these crises?

[Baroness Warsi]

As my noble friend will be aware, the situation on the ground is constantly changing. We are receiving almost hourly updates on what is happening. We are concerned about the situation in the Crimea, and are aware of reports of armed men seizing local government buildings. We are watching the situation closely. We are urging all parties both inside and outside Ukraine to exercise restraint, to stop further inflaming tensions and to stop any further impact on Ukraine’s sovereignty. We are in touch with a number of partners on this matter. As the situation on the ground is changing so quickly we are looking to see the best response at this stage.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Clearly, Russia has legitimate interests in Ukraine and we should strive to avoid being provocative. How do the Government respond to the suggestion that we should urge the new Ukrainian Government to avoid entering into any military alliance which might be considered by Russia to be provocative?

[Baroness Warsi]

The Government do not believe that this is a zero-sum game. We do not feel that the EU’s relationship with Ukraine is at the expense of its relationship with Russia. We fundamentally believe that it is for the people of Ukraine to choose their future, securing their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Certainly in the discussions that we have had with our Russian colleagues, we have both stressed the need to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Did my noble friend and her colleagues notice that Russia is having increasing difficulty in selling its gas to western Europe—it has had to lower its prices—and that 40% of Russian gas exports go out through Ukraine? Does that not suggest that the last thing Russia really wants is a Ukraine broken in two or descending into chaos? Is that not quite an important point of leverage in our discussions with Moscow on what should be done next?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend makes an important point. It supports our view that it is not in our interest or in Russia’s interest for there to be instability in Ukraine. It is for that reason that we are urging all parties to act in a way that does not further inflame tensions.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

Further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, does the Minister agree that the situation is now one of extreme peril and sensitivity? Ukraine is not so much the backyard of Russia but, in a sense, the side door, bearing in mind that Sebastopol is the base of the Black Sea fleet and that anything that is done by way of any military suggestion whatever is fraught with peril.

[Baroness Warsi]

I cannot speculate in response to the noble Lord’s question. This comes back to the fact that Ukraine is an independent country. It is a sovereign nation. It is the right of the people of Ukraine to make a decision for the future that best suits them in accordance with the reforms which are in the best interests of the Ukrainian nation. We need to make sure that we conduct ourselves in a way that means that we focus on reconciliation and stability.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, may I take the previous question a stage further? People have mentioned the Crimea. Sebastopol is in the Crimea geographically but it is Russian sovereign territory. The Russian military is in Sebastopol, which is quite different from the rest of the Crimea, with the Russian Black Sea fleet being there under treaty until 2018.

[Baroness Warsi]

I am not quite sure what the question is.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, further to the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Falkner regarding tensions in Ukraine and a UN special envoy as a way of reducing those tensions, might it not be possible for the European Union, on the suggestion of the United Kingdom, to indicate its strong support for the safety and security of residents in those areas that have substantial numbers of Russians—for example, the Sebastopol region and Crimea—and for the idea of protecting human rights wherever there is a legitimate resident person? I think that that would go some way to easing the understandable fears of Russian pensioners living in the Crimea and Sebastopol regions.

[Baroness Warsi]

That is certainly the position that has been adopted, as evidenced by the work and the comments made earlier this week by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. In all contacts which the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have had with President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov over the past seven days, as well as with other Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers across Europe, we have made clear that it is in our interest to ensure that the people of Ukraine—all the people of Ukraine, whatever background they come from—feel that they have a stake in Ukraine’s future.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until not before 1 o’clock, to enable those of us who wish to do so to make our way to the Royal Gallery to hear an address from the Chancellor of Germany. All Members of the House are welcome to attend and I encourage them to do so.

11:36

Sitting suspended.

Syria and the Middle East

Thursday 27th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

13:00

Moved by

[Baroness Warsi]

That this House takes note of recent developments in Syria and the Middle East.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister opens the debate, it may be helpful if I give a little guidance. This debate is not time-limited. I hope that we may use some of our Thursdays for Government-led debates where the House is not constrained by our normal, rather short time limits. There are 25 speakers today in our Syria and Middle East debate. Were Back-Bench contributions to be kept to around 10 minutes, it would allow debate on our later business to commence at about 6.30 pm.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, the situation in Syria and its impact on neighbouring countries continues to be bleak and disturbing. It is already the greatest humanitarian disaster of the century. Some 5,000 Syrians are dying each month, 2.4 million people have been forced from their homes, 250,000 are trapped under siege and the bombardment of civilian areas continues. Yet finally, we saw on Saturday the first, tentative, steps of progress when the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted the UK co-sponsored Resolution 2139.

As my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire informed the House earlier this week, this resolution—the first time the Security Council has come together to act in response to the deteriorating humanitarian situation—demands an immediate end to the violence, the freeing of besieged areas and the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid to the whole of Syria. It rightly condemns terrorist attacks and, in line with Britain’s policy over the past three years, places its weight behind efforts to seek a negotiated political settlement and the implementation of the Geneva communiqué.

Although the passage of Resolution 2139 represents a significant diplomatic success, it will have an impact and relieve the suffering of Syria’s starving people only if it is applied fully and immediately. That is why we are working closely with UN agencies to press ahead quickly with the delivery of aid to hard-to-reach and blockaded areas. In parallel, we call on the Assad regime to comply fully with the resolution. We are clear that we will return to the Security Council and take further steps in the case of non-compliance. Yet it saddens me that, in stark contrast to the approach being taken by the national coalition, there remains no sign of the Assad regime having any willingness whatever to allow the political transition demanded by the Security Council. Indeed, the UN and Arab League envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, has laid responsibility for the failure of the Geneva II negotiations clearly at the door of the regime.

UK support to the Syrian people within Syria itself and to refugees in surrounding countries now stands at more than £600 million and includes funding for Syrian civil defence teams to help local communities respond to attacks, providing everything from radios and protective firefighting clothing to desperately needed medical kits.

I will now turn to other key countries across the region, starting with Iran. The interim agreement with Iran came into force on 20 January and is being implemented. Meanwhile, the E3+3 and Iran met last week to start negotiations on a comprehensive agreement aimed at ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme is, and always will be, exclusively peaceful. The talks were constructive and will continue in mid-March in Vienna. We continue to expand our bilateral engagement with Iran. Last Thursday, we and Iran brought protecting power arrangements to an end. This is a sign of increasing confidence that we can conduct bilateral business directly between capitals, rather than through intermediaries.

We will continue with these step-by-step improvements in our bilateral relations, providing that they remain reciprocal. We are, for example, working together on ways in which to make it easier for Iranian and British citizens to obtain consular and visa services. However, the House should be under no illusion that the challenges remain considerable and, until a comprehensive solution to address all proliferation concerns related to Iran’s nuclear programme is found, existing sanctions will remain intact and will be enforced robustly.

Syria’s closest neighbours, Lebanon and Jordan in particular, have both been greatly affected by the continuing instability in the region. As a result, almost one in five of Lebanon’s population is a registered refugee, while Jordan has the dubious honour of being home to the second largest refugee camp in the world. The UK is contributing more than £110 million to assist each of these nations with the humanitarian emergencies that it faces. It was a subject that I discussed at length with the Jordanian Foreign Minister on 9 January, and we continue to co-operate closely. However, the worsening humanitarian crisis is compounded by violence not just in Syria but also in Lebanon, where the UK is providing assistance to increase border security, and in Iraq. The Government and, I am sure, all sides of the House, condemn the recent deaths and violence across the region and urge all sides to unite to find political solutions to the challenges being faced.

In Iraq last year, we saw the violent deaths of more than 8,000 civilians, and 300,000 people have been displaced from the west of Iraq since the beginning of this year alone. Here again, it is vital that inclusive political process accompanies counterterrorism operations. The upcoming parliamentary elections will form a key part of that, by offering the people of Iraq an opportunity to demonstrate their political will, make their voices heard and set a clear mandate for the new Government. It is therefore vital that the elections are free and fair and held on time.

More broadly, in terms of regional security, we must never lose sight of the importance and centrality of the Middle East peace process to the lives of millions of Israelis and Palestinians and to international peace. In the past month, more than 30 Palestinian protesters were injured by Israeli live ammunition, while two Israeli soldiers were injured. Both Israeli and Palestinian security forces have foiled terrorist attacks on Israel, allegedly planned by individuals in the West Bank. Attacks by settlers on Palestinian property also continued. Progress towards peace and a two-state solution is desperately needed, and the efforts by US Secretary of State John Kerry to agree a framework for negotiations offers a unique opportunity to secure lasting peace.

In Egypt, the third anniversary of the revolution was marred by the death of 100 protesters, as terrorist groups brought their terror campaign to Cairo. Having seen three Governments in the three short years since we witnessed such scenes of jubilation, the Egyptian people have yet to find the stable, democratic, representative Government for whom they fought, capable of tackling the vast political and economic challenges the country faces. However, the referendum on the draft constitution, held last month, was an important milestone on the political road map. It allowed millions of Egyptians to express their opinion through the ballot box and brought renewed hope for the presidential and parliamentary elections due to be held before the summer.

Similarly, the challenges facing the people and Government of Libya, as they seek to build a secure, prosperous and democratic country after four decades, remain serious, but we are firmly committed to supporting them in whatever way we can, including by helping reform the police force, army and prison service to ensure that they are accountable, comply with basic standards of human rights and tackle corruption. However, while we must not lose sight of the progress that Libya has made over the past two years, we welcome the recent elections for a constitution drafting committee and the recent statement by Libyan Justice Minister Marghani about Libya’s willingness to co-operate with the UK and US on the Lockerbie case. It is still clear that political divisions within Libya continue to hamper progress overall. The conference on Libya in Rome on 6 March offers all Libyans the opportunity to renew their commitment to a single, inclusive political settlement. The UK looks forward to taking part in the conference and will continue to encourage other nations to provide the international support that Libya needs on issues as varied as political transition, governance and arms and ammunition.

I turn to where the Arab spring began. Tunisia continues to overcome significant obstacles and continues its democratic transition. On 26 January, it achieved an important and historic milestone: the adoption of a new constitution that embodies the fundamental freedoms called for by the Tunisian people. The UK will continue to offer support to the Tunisian Government, both through our own Arab partnership programme and through the EU and G8, to ensure that Tunisia can sustain and build on its achievements so far, and can continue to be an inspiration to others struggling for freedom across the region.

Let me now turn to the Gulf states. I had the honour of visiting Saudi Arabia and Oman last week, to discuss—among other things—religious tolerance and other regional issues. The UK has an incredibly strong relationship with our Gulf partners. More than 160,000 British nationals live and work there. We work together across a wide range of issues. The Gulf is vital for our energy security and for countering the terrorist threat, and it is one of our largest global export markets.

The Gulf states share our concern at the instability and turbulence in the Middle East. On Syria, we work with Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE as part of the London 11 grouping, and Gulf nations contributed generously to the $2.4 billion raised by the recent Syria pledging conference in Kuwait. We work with Gulf countries to enhance regional security, for example by responding to the security situation in Yemen, particularly with Saudi Arabia with whom we co-chair the Friends of Yemen group.

We are delivering aid work in Afghanistan in conjunction with our colleagues from the UAE; supporting Bahrain through its ground-breaking reform process; and have strong defence and commercial ties with our friends in Oman. Gulf countries provide a welcome base for our armed forces, and UK expertise and equipment is contributing to Gulf defence. We also value the contribution Gulf countries make to our security, particularly through our close co-operation on counterterrorism issues.

In a region which has seen huge instability and violence, Yemen’s progress so far has been commendable. The UK welcomes the recent conclusions of the National Dialogue Conference and applauds the spirit of co-operation and compromise that allowed participants to reach a consensus. However, millions of Yemenis are still living without food, shelter or water. The UK is the third largest donor of humanitarian aid and DfID has committed £196 million over three years to support development. However, the security situation in Yemen remains dire. The UK has been working with the Yemeni Government for a number of years to help them disrupt al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula and to help deny al-Qaeda a haven in Yemen for the future. The UK now urges progress on the next stages of Yemen’s transition, which includes the drafting of a new constitution, implementation of the NDC outcomes, timely organisation of a constitutional referendum and transparent elections.

In opening this debate it is clear—and it will become increasingly clear as the debate unfolds—that the situation in the Middle East continues, despite the odd glimmer of hope, to give grave cause for concern. The UK continues to be extremely active across the region—bilaterally and multilaterally through the UN and EU, and with allies—to deliver urgent humanitarian assistance, to bolster security and to provide forums in which all parties can work towards sustainable political settlements. I know it is a region of the world about which there is great interest and certainly expertise on all sides of this House, and I look forward to hearing your Lordships’ assessment of the situation.

13:12

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, for opening this important and very timely debate today, and for doing so with her customary openness and breadth of knowledge on the Middle East. May I direct your Lordships to my entry in the register of interests as chairman of the Arab British Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the British Egyptian Society, among other things?

This is a period of great change and great challenge in the Middle East, right the way across the region from the Maghreb and north Africa across the Levant and into the Gulf states. When I was first a Minister in your Lordships’ House some 17 years ago, many a debate about the region was focused on the hostilities between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the wider potential conflict throughout the Middle East. We then referred to the Middle East peace process because there was only one peace process anybody had in mind. Now of course that spectrum of conflict both within and between the states in the region is so much more complex and widespread and, of course, it is drawing in global players who have their own very significant agendas about their relationships with the Middle East.

The overlay of sectarian conflict within the states of the Arab League, the hugely increased tensions between Iran and its closest neighbours and the growing and seriously deep concerns of the Gulf states about the role of Iran within the region are absolutely apparent to any visitor who goes there. There was, of course, a time when any opening conversation with a Minister in one of the countries of the Arab League was about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Now the issue at the top of its agenda is Syria, and Iran’s role in the Syrian conflict and sustaining the Assad regime through its support for Hezbollah and the spread of sectarian extremism.

At the same time we continue to see growing demands throughout the region for the enfranchisement of civil society, for democracy, and for written constitutions that enshrine the rule of law and human rights, including of course the rights of women. This debate has singled out one country for special concern, and rightly so. Syria is in a dire position, as the Minister illustrated, with 5,000 of its citizens dying every month, 24,000 people under siege and 2.5 million Syrians now refugees in neighbouring countries, particularly Jordan and Lebanon, both of which are showing real stress under the strain of their own resources of food, water, medicines, healthcare and education.

The Statement that the noble Baroness’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, repeated in this House earlier this week was of course welcome, marking as it did the unanimous vote on UN Resolution 2139 on Syrian humanitarian assistance. The resolution demands an end to the violence, the lifting of the sieges, and access for aid. It also condemns the terrorist attacks. However, the salient sentence of that Statement was to point out that although the resolution was, “an important achievement”, it would,

“make a practical difference only if it is implemented in full”.—[Official Report, 24/2/14; col. 752.]

The resolution is not under Chapter 7, so can the noble Baroness, when she winds up, tell the House what is the next step open to the United Nations if Syria fails to comply? Indeed, what is the next step if the Syrian Government fail to meet the deadline for the destruction of its chemical weapons by 30 June this year, as demanded by UN Resolution 2118? So far, the OPCW has said that only 11% of the stockpile of chemical weapons has been destroyed. Does the Minister believe that it is operationally a possibility to destroy the remaining 89% of these terrible chemical weapons within the next four months? If not, what is the next step?

We also need to keep a clear focus on the impact of the Syrian conflict in Lebanon and Jordan—very different as they are politically but which share the same common burden of the huge influx of refugees. The role of Hezbollah, particularly in Lebanon, appears to be increasing and strengthening. In supporting the Assad regime, Hezbollah appears to be locked into an increasingly vicious series of revenge attacks from groups linked to al-Qaeda, which involve innocent bystanders who have been the victims, including many young people and some children. Meanwhile, the Syrian Government are claiming to have killed 175 al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-linked fighters yesterday in the eastern outskirts of Damascus. The response to the Israeli airstrike on Monday night is bound to further complicate and exacerbate the vicious nature of this conflict. Israel’s Prime Minister vowed to prevent Hezbollah obtaining “game-changing weapons” from Syria; and Hezbollah has vowed to respond, warning that it would,

“choose the time and place and proper way to respond”.

So can the Minister shed any light on whether there is any discussion or contact with these terrorist groups who appear to be fighting each other every bit as viciously as they want to fight the Government of Israel?

There was of course a further development in the Middle East this week that needs discussion—the resignation on Monday of the Egyptian Prime Minister Hazem el-Beblawi. Developments in Egypt are of real importance, not only in terms of stability in the region but the impact that they have across all the neighbouring countries and, arguably, globally. I understand that we are expecting a new Cabinet to be announced this weekend, under ex-Housing Minister Ibrahim Mahlab as Prime Minister. President Adly Masour, I understand, remains and some 17 Ministers are expected to retain their portfolios, but it would be interesting to know what more the noble Baroness can say on that.

With its population of more than 90 million, Egypt is by far the most populous country in the whole of the area, with its enormous army readily available. Arguably, it is Egypt that has for years held the line within the region on the Middle East conflict between Israel and the Arab countries because of its support for the peace process. Of course, Jordan has also been part of that relationship, but Egypt was the real guarantor. The turmoil that followed—the election of Mr Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, his subsequent removal from power by the army and the adoption of a new constitution pending presidential and subsequently parliamentary elections—were all hugely important, not only to Egypt, but across the whole region and, very particularly, to the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia.

Gulf funding of more than $16 billion since July last year is crucial to Egypt’s stability, but with an inflation rate of 13% and a huge underclass of unemployed young people—70% of the population of Egypt are under age 29—Egypt’s economic stability is enormously important. It is not only political reforms that so many Egyptians want to see, but almost as importantly, they want economic reform. The interim Government have said that they wanted to reform the hugely expensive subsidy regime, reduce the budget deficit and stimulate the economy. Will the Minister tell the House how the British Government are supporting those objectives and whether we are contributing to the EBRD investment support of making more than €2.5 billion of investment a year into the countries of the Mediterranean—not only Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, but also Jordan? Those are countries that declare that they are committed to the principles of democracy, pluralism and, of course, market economics.

The great regional powers—Egypt and Saudi Arabia—have crucial roles to play in the stability of the region, but they face enormous challenges internally and those challenges are hugely different from each other. For us, it might be tempting to try to describe the Middle East in terms of broad generalities, but that is neither accurate nor fair. There may be some common aspects, such as the high youth unemployment, the desire for the growth of civil society, the increasing sectarianism, and, in many countries, the thirst for democracy, but there are also differences that are enormous: differences in wealth, in culture, in the rule of law and in human rights.

I believe that this country has a real role to play in engaging with countries of the region—not just as a group, but as individual countries. The Minister and her colleagues did a brilliant job a couple of weeks ago, when we saw Ministers and business people in unprecedented numbers coming over from Saudi Arabia. Next week, there will be many Egyptians—including business people and Ministers—here in London. Our role in supporting change, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and—yes, very much so— investment and trade will continue to be vital in sustaining the stability of the region.

13:23

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for initiating this debate and giving such a good summary of all the events in the area, and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for her passionate and informative contribution. I am sure that many of the speakers will repeat many of the statistics. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do so but I want to put a slant on them.

The Syrian civil war shows no sign of contracting; according to the latest estimates, the number of fatalities has reached 140,000. The conflict has created 2.4 million refugees to date, and the UNHCR estimates that the number of refugees could rise to 4 million by the end of 2014. Within that overall crisis, there have been the sub-crises, such as the condition of the 20,000 in Yarmouk, a Palestinian refugee camp in south Damascus.

We have heard, and will hear in the debate today, how the West is helping the Syrian people. The UK has given £241 million in aid to support the population of Syria, as well as £263 million to Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries. Food is being provided, I am told, to 130,900 people, and the UK has funded 71,500 medical consultations for refugees in Lebanon and Jordan. EU member states have committed a total of €2.6 billion, €1.1 billion of which has come directly from the EU’s budget. The EU represents the biggest single contributor towards humanitarian relief in Syria.

On 15 January 2014, the United States pledged an additional $380 million on top of the $1.76 billion provided since the crisis began. More than $177 million has been spent within Syria, reaching an estimated 4.2 million people. It always seems very complicated when we talk of pounds sterling, euros and dollars, but, as anyone would say, these amounts are “megabucks”.

One source of aid and relief which receives little publicity is from neighbouring Israel—a surprise to many people. Israel has given medical treatment to some 700 Syrians, and the IDF even set up a field hospital specifically for the purpose of treating Syrian refugees. It is estimated that the number of Syrians seeking medical treatment in Israel will rise in the next year. Through liaison with the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, the Israeli defence force—the army—organised for food and winter supplies to be distributed to the Syrian population close to the Israeli border. We are also informed that the IDF frequently leaves aid parcels along Israel’s border with Syria.

The Israeli public have mobilised in aid of the Syrian population. More than 20,000 items of winter clothing were donated in response to an appeal by over 30 youth groups and Israeli Flying Aid, an organisation which supplies aid to countries with no diplomatic relations with Israel. Members of the Knesset of varying political parties have supported this campaign. On top of that, Israel has been working in partnership to support Syrian refugees in neighbouring Jordan, where there are thought to be half a million escaping the war—more than Jordan can cope with alone. Israeli NGO IsraAID has been working in partnership with Jordanian NGOs to provide supplies to displaced Syrians living in Jordan.

All that has been done despite the fact that Israel and Syria are still technically at war with one another, although a ceasefire is in place—one is grateful for small mercies. Indeed, UN Middle East envoy Robert Serry warned the UN Security Council in September last that fighting in the Golan could “jeopardise the ceasefire” after shells landed on the Israeli side of the truce line. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, also spoke of the danger of escalation on a number of the borders. I echo her sentiments and fears.

I should have declared, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, from another angle, that for some years I have been a vice-president of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel.

It is morally right that Israel helps its neighbours, and it should be encouraged to do so more and more. Its actions may also help to boost co-operation, understanding and the peace that has been so elusive throughout the region. Strange stories come out. CNN carried the quote that a fighter, possibly a rebel, to whom Israel provided medical care said:

“The regime used to make us hate it, but it turned out to be the best country”.

That was just one man’s comment but the fact is that you achieve a lot more by helping people than bombing them, from within or without. Israeli organisations go to considerable lengths to ensure that no Israeli labelling or Hebrew writing is on any aid packages so that refugees will not be accused of being collaborators. The same precautions are taken by Israeli hospitals providing medical treatment.

Israel has so far tried to keep a low profile in the Syrian conflict, and I apologise to it if I am raising that profile somewhat today. Given the high level of anti-Israel sentiment in the region, overt Israeli support for any party could be used to discredit it. I echo the Minister’s comments about the work of Secretary of State Kerry. I only hope and ask that the UK Government do all they can to support his efforts to bring both sides to the negotiating table to make big compromises. That is still a chore that we should be helping Secretary of State Kerry to achieve.

The West is faced with equally bad options in Syria of the Assad regime on the one hand and al-Qaeda and Islamist movements on the other. It is clear that no one knows what to do to end this conflict. Therefore the focus has been to try to support moderate elements in the opposition as much as possible and to provide aid to regional allies such as Jordan, which is bearing the brunt of the social, political and economic consequences of Syrian refugees. There are half a million Syrian refugees in Jordan and the UK Government should be concerned not only for these unfortunate refugees but for the undermining of the Hashemite Kingdom, a long-time friend of Britain. The growing threat from radical jihadists who have been drawn to the Syria conflict should create new impetus for co-operation between Israel and the Arab states in the region. The West would do well to develop and encourage regional frameworks for countering the challenge posed by the jihadists.

What I have tried to add in this debate is that everyone is appalled at the humanitarian crisis, even those whom Syria has previously attacked. We hear of assistance given, some of which has been given largely below the radar, but it must continue. The Minister referred to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2139—although it seems long ago, it was passed only on 22 February—which sets out the need for humanitarian assistance to Syria. There are very many people trapped in besieged areas in Syria and there are large numbers of refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. Three-quarters of those refugees, we are told, are women and children. I hope the Minister will say what the Government are doing to support the need for access to these besieged groups to provide urgent humanitarian relief. Aid must go across borders because it is not going to come from within Syria itself. So my two final questions for the Minister are: how do Her Majesty’s Government hope to assist in the humanitarian effort, and how can the fighting be stopped? Unless there is a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities within Syria, the killings and traumas are going to carry on and the humanitarian disaster that we are witnessing will continue.

13:32

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, as we debate Syria and the Middle East today, it is clear that we have witnessed and continue to witness a significant degree of political and social upheaval across the region. To that extent, the cards are up in the air, but we can have little control and less certainty about where they will eventually fall. This naturally poses some serious challenges to the formulation of a coherent UK policy in the Middle East. If we are to develop and maintain a credible strategic approach to the dynamic and complex challenges of the region, we need first a comprehensive analysis of the context and then a clear focus on those issues that are most important to our own security and prosperity. I do not mean to diminish the importance of moral and humanitarian concerns—we should continue our efforts in this regard—but as a nation we have limited resources and influence. It is therefore crucial that we identify our own policy priorities.

The context is surely an unravelling of the post-1918 settlement that was intended to tidy up the detritus of the Ottoman Empire. Britain and France, of course, have their fingerprints all over this settlement. Consider Syria. The Ottomans ruled it for just over 400 years until 1918. The San Remo conference of 1920 placed Syria-Lebanon under a French mandate while, incidentally, putting Palestine under a British mandate at the same time. Syria became independent in 1946 but had no settled constitutional or political base. Between 1946 and 1956 the country had 20 different Cabinets and four different constitutions. The turmoil in Syria today is only the latest episode in a drawn-out process that has its roots in the end of Ottoman rule in 1918.

We now see long-buried fissures reappearing across many parts of the region. We see tribe pitted against tribe, Muslim against non-Muslim, Arab against non-Arab, authoritarian against libertarian and, perhaps most significantly, Sunni against Shia. Indeed, the last division is one of the most polarising and potentially one of the most dangerous. Overshadowing all this is the regional competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran. This, of course, encompasses some of the fissures that I have mentioned—Sunni/Shia and Arab/non-Arab—but the degree of national animosity and the pursuit of regional political dominance take the problem to a new level and the competition is increasingly being played out in Syria.

The political upheaval in Syria is different in nature from many of the others that we have seen elsewhere in the region. In places such as Libya and Egypt, the impetus for change came from, or quickly gravitated to, those in the cities and centres of population. In Syria it came from those on the periphery, particularly the impoverished and drought-ridden agricultural communities, and was directed against those at the centre. So change was more difficult to achieve, particularly since survival of the military leadership was more closely tied to the survival of the regime. Even so, it looked as if Assad could not last, but the intervention of Hezbollah changed the outlook.

Given the support of Iran and Russia, it is now hard to see how Assad could be removed in the near term. Given the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and to some extent at least the United States, it is hard to see how the regime could achieve a decisive military victory over the opposition groups. The most likely outcome in Syria is either degeneration into a Somalia-like failed state or division into a number of warring baronies. Neither outcome is palatable from a wider security perspective and both are likely to perpetuate large-scale human tragedy. Without substantial international intervention, for which there seems little or no appetite, it is hard to see a plausible alternative.

At the same time, two key sets of negotiations continue: on the Middle East peace process and on the Iranian nuclear issue. Both are likely to reach some sort of conclusion, whether satisfactory or not, later this year.

These then, are some of the key features of the regional context. With so many challenges and so little clarity on the likely outcomes, where should the UK place its own policy priorities? I should like to propose three areas. Top of the list, I suggest, should be the Iranian nuclear issue. The consequences of failure on this front for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and for long-term security within the region are likely to be extremely serious and to have a lasting effect on the UK’s own security. The ongoing negotiations are therefore critical. Of course, we have to negotiate well if we are to achieve the right outcome and, of course, we must take nothing on trust. Any agreement has to be verifiable. There will inevitably be different views on what constitutes a bad deal or a good deal.

I want to focus on two short-term issues that seem to me of fundamental importance in this whole process. The first is the sustainment of the agreed sanctions regime. As negotiations continue and some restrictions are lifted, there is a clear risk that sanctions as a whole will start to unravel. There will be a temptation for some countries or companies to jump the gun in order to gain a competitive advantage over their rivals. That risk cannot be entirely eliminated, so it will have to be managed. It will require strong and obvious resolve on the part of the major economic players to take firm and painful action against transgressors. The UK and the EU more generally will have an important part to play here.

The other issue concerns the question of where we go if negotiations fail. What is plan B? In such situations there is often a reluctance to consider plan B at all in case this is taken as a belief that plan A will not work, but such precautionary thinking does not need to be public. We can and should be discreetly considering what options are open to us if it proves impossible, even with more time, to reach a comprehensive settlement. This will involve some difficult decisions, but leaving them to the last minute risks making the difficult impossible. Of course the implicit existence of a plan B could help to focus minds on reaching a satisfactory agreement in the first place.

The second policy priority, I suggest, should be our relationship with Saudi Arabia. This has suffered over recent months, not least because of divergent views over Syria and concerns about the negotiations with Iran. However, Saudi Arabia remains the pivotal country in the Gulf region and is of considerable economic importance to the UK. Given the differences in our societies and cultures, the relationship is never going to be an easy one. It will require hard work, a degree of tolerance on both sides and, above all, constant and clear communication. The relationship is too important to the UK and its interests for us to neglect it. How closely are the Saudis being consulted on the negotiations with Iran? What we might consider a satisfactory outcome might look very different to Saudi eyes. Although we cannot give them a veto over the process, attempting to deal with or mitigate their concerns must be a key policy objective for the international community as well as for us.

The third priority should be to contain, as far as that is possible, the wider regional consequences of a Syrian conflict. Jordan matters to us as an old friend and it matters to Israel because of the latter’s concerns over strategic depth, so it is key to wider regional stability. However, Jordan is being weakened and undermined by the conflict in Syria. As others have mentioned, the large number of refugees is putting great stress on the already weak economy. There is no doubt that the social impact of what is going on in Jordan as a result of the conflict in Syria is having enormous repercussions for the regime there. Therefore, support for Jordan, for its economy and for its political development should be a key part of the UK’s policy in the region.

There are of course other malign international repercussions of the war in Syria. The Lebanon is being seriously affected. Perhaps one of the most worrying consequences is the growth of an ungoverned space straddling the Syria-Iraq border and the implications for radical Islamist terrorist groups. For example, the recent activities of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant demonstrate the risk of such an ungoverned space. The group poses serious dangers to the future of both Iraq and Syria and potentially further afield. Containing this risk will require some sort of governance over the affected area. For this reason, if no other, the feuding baronies outcome in Syria that I described earlier, while unpalatable, would certainly be preferable to a Somalia-like failed state. Another wider consequence of the Syrian situation is the return of radicalised and battle-hardened jihadis from the conflict zone to their home states. Saudi Arabia is increasingly concerned about this issue and the implications for its own security. It also affects us here in the UK. In many ways, this is a challenge for domestic rather than foreign policy, but it is a challenge nevertheless.

There are, of course, other important issues, such as the Middle East peace process, that I do not have time to cover, but many of these, while crucial to the UK, are beyond our power to influence directly. As I said at the outset, the proliferation of challenges within the Middle East and the limits on our ability to confront them should force us to a clear-eyed analysis of UK priorities. Naturally, some may disagree with those that I have proposed, but in my view such an analysis is essential if we are to take a coherent and strategically informed approach to the many dangers that we face, rather than simply wringing our hands about them.

13:43

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her characteristically clear introduction to this debate and for setting the context so succinctly.

In December 2002, I was called to 10 Downing Street for a clandestine meeting with the Prime Minister’s appointments secretary to talk about the possibility of my going to the See of Wakefield. When I arrived, I was terrified that my cover might be blown, since television cameras surrounded us and, indeed, I followed Andrew Marr through the security gate. The cameras were, of course, not for us but for President Assad, who was paying an official visit to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Indeed, there was even talk at the time of persuading the Queen to confer a knighthood on the Syrian leader.

I begin there because we now, as they say, find ourselves in a very different place. For some time, the UK, alongside other western countries, has been backing the so-called Syrian national coalition, an association of most unlikely bedfellows whose only cause for unity is opposition to the Assad regime. That is, even with the typical vagaries of international affairs, an extraordinary volte face.

The complexities facing western nations in looking to future policy on Syria are greater still. For since the intervention in Libya, originally styled as a humanitarian crusade, became fairly swiftly a policy aimed at regime change, international relationships have shifted significantly. It was of course that policy change, more than anything else, which assured the West of a more than usually tricky interface with Russia in any attempt to bring the tragic bloodshed in Syria to a swift conclusion. That conflict has already claimed more than 130,000 lives—someone said earlier that it was now 140,000.

Last summer, with the discovery of Syria’s use of chemical weapons, the western nations were faced with another critical decision. Did the enormity of that terrible abuse of human rights and inhumanitarian behaviour deserve a powerful intervention from the USA, the UK and other North Atlantic allies? We all know the denouement of that crisis, and many of us may be proud that this Parliament, by offering us the opportunity to debate the issue, was almost certainly instrumental in making certain that no western nation intervened in that way at that time.

Where does that leave us now, as this tragic war enters its fourth year? First, all analysis of civil wars suggests that wholesale military intervention from outside the country will lengthen the war. Indeed, as we continue to see, even Iraq has still not thrown off the shackles of the internecine strife with which both this country and the USA engaged so controversially just over 10 years ago. To answer my question as to where that leaves us is itself fraught. It does not leave us, as some simplistic analyses suggest, with either Assad or al-Qaeda. Nor does it leave us with any clear sense that our support for the Syrian national coalition has done anything to bring closure to the conflict, or even any clear resolution of the situation which continues to claim so many lives. It does, however, leave us with a displacement of people on a terrifying scale. In January 2014, the United Nations published figures showing that within Syria, 6.5 million people are already internally displaced and in desperate need. A further 242,000 are under siege, with more than 2.4 million people in external refugee camps.

With more than 2 million refugees, that indicates that the future of Syria lies to a large degree outside the country. That is true not only because of displaced persons but because of the vested interest of powerful nations from both the East and the West. Russia, China and Iran all have interests outside Syria which need to be included in the equation.

Let me return to my question again: where does that leave us now? It does not point us to a religious conflict—despite the destruction, since the beginning of the conflict, of so many of the ancient Christian Syrian communities: Assyrians, Melkhites and Antiochene Orthodox. Of course, the suffering of Christians pales into insignificance when compared with the suffering of the wider Syrian community as a whole. No, this is not a religious but a political conflict, and the only positive way forward must be a political, humanitarian and diplomatic strategy. As we have already heard, the challenges are immense, but the fact that Syria’s future lies to such a degree outside its own borders puts a great moral responsibility on countries like our own.

With that in mind, where might Her Majesty’s Government find leverage? There is no doubt that leverage within the regime in Syria and, indeed, within the myriad of opposition groups, is very limited. I have already hinted at the problems of unqualified support for the Syrian national coalition. It is almost, by definition, a western-selected coalition and therefore does not represent widespread support on the ground within Syria. So, to take a rather contrasting approach, removing international support both for the regime and for opposition groups is a policy which may lead to more possibilities of leverage from the West. Russia, China and Iran’s external interests were alluded to earlier. Removing international support in both directions—that is for the regime and opposition groups—will, of course, not end the civil war in itself. It may, however, help starve the conflict by reducing the resources which continue to fan the flames.

Alongside this, will Her Majesty’s Government support efforts to bring about reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia in order to offer a new axis of stability in the region? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referred to these various tensions, pressures and axes within the region. Will Her Majesty’s Government also, as I have hinted, seek means to maintain Syrian civil society in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region—in Jordan, for example—where vast numbers of displaced persons are living as refugees?

In asking these questions, let me press the point that we should prescind from further support for a military solution and invest resources—financial and human—in seeking the seeds of a humane and lasting political solution.

13:51

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, it is clearly difficult to comment effectively on all the countries that we are considering in this debate, but I begin by observing that there is a dreadful similarity in almost all of them, where government and authority—sometimes legitimate, sometimes tyrannical—are losing their grip and/or are under intense challenge. Power is fragmenting: it is not being neatly transferred to new dawns and new bodies, but being fragmented into the street. The monopoly of state-armed power by which the authority was hitherto upheld has been fractured. That is what is happening. It is a new pattern and one has to ask why this new force is anything different from revolutions and rebellions in the past.

The answer, of course, lies in technology. It lies in the tsunami of new weapons that are in the hands of minorities and which, with very few people, can inflict enormous damage on traditionally and classically armed formations. I am thinking of the improvised explosive devices which have done so much damage in Afghanistan, of endless decoys, of shoulder-held missiles which can be purchased in the international arms souk. I am thinking even of homemade drones. Hezbollah managed to get a drone aloft which it had put together itself. These are just the beginnings of a massive miniaturisation of weaponry which makes the vast military machines with which the 20th century tried to equip itself increasingly vulnerable. That is one aspect.

Secondly, and even more powerful, is the fact that the street is empowered. The rebels and the rebellions are empowered by an information revolution of an intensity and an organisational capacity impossible to envisage in the past. It is completely new. It gives connectivity through the 7 billion mobile telephones in the world. Half of the entire planet is on the world wide web. This gives an organisational capacity to minorities and to those challenging authority on a scale we have never seen before. We have only to think of what happened when Mohammed Bouazizi immolated himself in Tunis. Within hours, and certainly within days, the entire street population of the whole of Arabia was militant, aggravated and activated.

So this is a new pattern—a completely new pattern of power, distribution of power, dispersal of power and fragmentation of power has emerged. That is what we are seeing in the Middle East at the moment. In all cases, attempts to crush by conventional force by shooting down the enemy—shooting down the rebels and so on—have not worked and are not working. They did not work for Assad, although he may survive. He may just hang on but he certainly will not win and will never get back the country that he began with. It did not work in Egypt and did not really work with the wretched Gaddafi in Libya, which with all his weapons and money he failed to control. It has not worked in Iraq, where the rate of slaughter has got worse and some thousands and thousands are continuing to die. Indeed, although we are not discussing this today, it quite obviously has not worked for President Yanukovych in Ukraine. He thought that he could use force to suppress the opposition and the challenges but he soon found, as other dictators and indeed democratic Governments have found, that force does not work any more. The old pattern of crushing and bringing in the tanks is now not the weapon that it was.

We will probably hear more from my noble friend Lord Lamont on Iran, as he is a great expert in that field, but even in Iran the trembling elements in protest are rumbling away. That is the universal pattern so instead of the order that one hoped was going to come with orderly protest and cries for liberty, we have on every side chaos. The old saw is that a revolution devours its children. Of course, in Syria we have seen its children devouring each other in the most horrific ways, with a savagery which is almost unimaginable in times of what we thought was peace.

That question of rebel against rebel brings me to a second point which I want to share with your Lordships, which is the colossal complexity of all the situations with which we are dealing. I will give only two examples. In Syria, al-Qaeda controls the small but important oilfields, which produce about 100,000 barrels a day or probably less. What do they do with that oil? They refine it crudely and sell it to President Assad. Wait a minute—can that be right when he is on the other side and fighting them? Yes, it is right: they are selling refined oil so that he can drive his aeroplanes. The bargain is that he has agreed not to bomb the areas controlled by al-Qaeda. That is just one example of the extraordinarily labyrinthine nature of the situation we are dealing with.

Then there are the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, touched on with great authority regarding Hezbollah in Lebanon. Lebanese politics have always been immensely complicated but now we have an extraordinary situation in which Hezbollah, which used to be the state within a state and seemed to be a challenge to Lebanon’s unity, is itself under attack and being protected by the Lebanese army from suicide bombers, some Sunni extremists and, to some extent, al-Qaeda. They are attacking it because it is backing a different side. It is backing Assad and they, with Saudi and Qatari support and a continuous flow of weapons, are backing the other side. The difficulty of saying, “Let us have priorities. What should we do?” is vastly multiplied by the fact that we do not really know who is on which side in many of these areas. The complexities are far greater than the simplicities which we hoped for when we talked about the Arab spring, and how that would bring new Governments, new liberties and new democracy. I am afraid that it is not going to be like that.

The third point which I want to mention is the energy aspect. Energy issues obviously run throughout the whole Middle East situation but there are some new factors, which I think have not been mentioned. I do not know whether they are recognised in London at all. However, in the east Mediterranean vast new gas reserves have been identified. In the case of Israel, the reserves have been found and are being used. They have a very significant effect on the whole pattern in the area. Cyprus and Israel want to work together to develop them. Lebanon, when it manages to get a Government and some kind of laws in place, wants to develop its resource. Turkey is interested in the enormous gas resources around the south of Cyprus. Cyprus itself now has north and south Governments, who are rather readier to talk to each other than they have been for some time.

There is a completely new pattern on the chessboard of the east Mediterranean and I hope the United Kingdom authorities will play a constructive part by supporting Turkey’s aspirations. Turkey is facing instabilities and problems on the street; it still wants to get into the European Union, and it is not feeling very happy about the way things are going. The acquisition of gas resources by Israel is changing its attitude as well to what can be done in the way of supplying gas, certainly to Jordan and Palestine. Indeed, it has already signed contracts, oddly enough, to supply gas back to Egypt—the other way around from the pattern that used to exist five years ago.

The most important thing that my right honourable friend William Hague said when he made the Statement in the other place so skilfully on Monday was:

“I agree that the age of spheres of influence is now over”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/14; col. 40.]

John Kerry was saying much the same thing the day after. That is a most profound point. He was talking mainly about the Ukraine, but it applies just as much to the whole Middle East and all the troubled areas we are looking at. We can think in terms of the EU working collectively in some areas very effectively—not always, but sometimes—but the truth is that a much wider coalition of the willing, not just of western powers and the usual suspects of the old NATO world, is needed, embracing the rising powers of Asia and the big players of Africa and Latin America. These areas have just as much say, responsibility for and interests in the Middle East and its stability as we do. It is worth remembering that most of the oil of the Middle East now goes eastwards to Asia and does not come to Europe or the West at all.

Those are the new realities that I wanted to share with your Lordships in my allotted time. There is a completely new international landscape in which we have to operate. We can lay down our priorities, but the question is how do we make those priorities work? How do we implement them? I have the privilege of chairing a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that is looking at British influence and soft power over the coming years. Of course, we do not produce answers, but I hope we shall clarify a few of the points that we have raised today and that that will be useful for your Lordships.

14:02

[Lord Stone of Blackheath (Lab)]

My Lords, Syria is in the title of this timely debate, but one could have chosen, as has been said, several other epicentres of enormous world-changing transition within the region. For example, I have just returned from Israel and the West Bank, where great efforts are going into the peace talks and, despite the scepticism, movement is happening. Even though the timeframe may need to be extended, a positive process will be agreed by the middle of this year.

Today I want to concentrate on Egypt, which is also going to be a different country by June this year, and thereby influence the region for the better. Three weeks ago, a cross-party group of Members of both Houses visited Cairo, including the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Marlesford. Here I declare a non-financial interest as governor of the British University in Egypt (the BUE). Its founder, Mohamed Farid Khamis, and his foundation sponsored our visit.

Our objectives were to support the Egyptian people in their aspirations to democracy and stability, to establish a relationship between parliamentarians and promote better relationships between our countries, to keep on their agenda religious freedom, civil liberties, women’s rights, and to encourage some of the positive steps already taken in these fields. This visit was the first of a planned series of visits that will build relationships once the new Administration has been elected.

We had face-to-face individual meetings with the President, the Prime Minister at that time, Field Marshal al-Sisi, the Foreign Minister, the Minister of the Interior, His Holiness the Coptic Pope and the Grand Imam, and we were accompanied by the British Ambassador, James Watt. Our discussions were deep and wide and we developed several themes that we might work on together. For example, on the separation of police and the military, we agreed in talks with Field Marshal al-Sisi from the military, and the Interior Minister for the police, that while Egypt has a strong and effective military, which traditionally has an elevated status, its job now should be to deal with external threats to control the frontier, and it must re-establish order in the Sinai and keep a firm hold on the water sources there.

Egypt is facing unprecedented pressure from within, and the military cannot be the police. In the longer term, this civil unrest requires a police force with a higher status, an entirely different entity from the military, which should become a wide collection of local forces in all towns, villages, cities and communities, with a subtle understanding of local issues and integrated into the community, yet still with strong central governance. In this context, we also discussed the hundreds of detainees. Egypt needs immediately to develop a process to try them in court for recognised crimes or to release them.

We talked about the need, in addition to the presidential and parliamentary elections, for a process of continued national dialogue that could mobilise all the energies within Egypt. Within its 90 million people, there are many groupings that have their own hopes and fears, grievances and aspirations. A Government who want to rule with the will of their people must have a robust, sensitive, patient, long-term system for listening to, hearing and responding to those voices. They are now considering a centre for civic involvement at the British University of Egypt where faculty, students and experts from the UK can facilitate dialogue. We emphasised the need for the involvement of Copts, Nubians, youth, women and so on.

We also met with the wise and experienced Amr Moussa, who has gone to great lengths to work with the Committee of 50, including these groups, which, with enormous patience and understanding, has created a new Egyptian constitution. He and all the people we met realise that they are taking on a huge task to restore Egypt to its former glory. The economy needs reviving. Law and order will encourage tourism. Inward investment should be made as easy as possible, and there is a need to increase—as is being done by the BUE—training for work and employment for youth. Healthcare will need to be restructured. Egyptians have great talent and entrepreneurialism and stand at the crux between Africa to the south and Europe to the north; they are part of the east and the west.

We have just heard Angela Merkel talk about the peace and prosperity brought about by post-war united Europe. Were Israel and Palestine and Jordan and Egypt to find their feet in the next few years and begin to work and trade together, they could serve as a light to the nations that surround them. That could be the beginning of a Middle East and north Africa that contribute greatly to the world’s economy, ecology, art, science, medicine and culture.

As a result of this visit, we will form an all-party parliamentary group on Egypt. We will arrange follow-up meetings post Egyptian parliamentary elections for us to go back to Egypt and for them to come to the UK. We hope that noble Lords will help us help them gain the stability they seek and that Her Majesty’s Government will support this work where Britain could help bring a wider stability to the whole region.

I have just noticed that I have spoken for only five minutes. Can I bank the extra five for a future debate when I am limited to three minutes?

14:08

[Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I propose to concentrate in this debate on the situation in Syria, though I shall also touch briefly on the continuing disgrace of Israeli settlement policy on the West Bank. I doubt whether under the rules I am required to disclose an interest, but I nevertheless declare, as I have before in this House, that as ambassador to Syria many years ago, I have retained a deep affection for Syria as a country.

On Syria, all sides in the Syrian civil war have been committing unspeakable crimes against the Syrian population, and the resulting humanitarian crisis engulfing not only Syrians but Palestinians in their refugee camps is widely acknowledged to be one of the worst we have seen for some time. The Government’s approach to this, as reflected most recently in the Foreign Secretary’s Statement three days ago, has been to call for a political transition in Syria, which is shorthand for the removal of the Assad leadership from government in Damascus. Is it surprising, in these circumstances, that the Syrian Government’s representative in the latest round of talks should have refused to discuss “transition”?

The international agreement last July that a political transition in Damascus should be the number one priority was reached at a time when it was forecast, however misguidedly, that the Assad Government were about to fall. The situation is now very different. Not only has there been a significant change in the military situation; attempts to put together a moderate rebel group that might take part in any future transitional Government have proved notably unsuccessful, with the Syrian national coalition in a state of confusion, if not chaos. The extreme Islamist movements, largely consisting of foreign extremists infiltrated into Syria and financed by our friends in the Gulf, are now proving to be the only effective military opposition to the Assad Government. In these circumstances, should it really be our priority to work for a transition, when the resulting Government might turn out to be considerably more dangerous, both for our interests and for those of the Syrian people, than the present secular Government in Damascus?

The Foreign Secretary has argued that our top priority is a political solution to end the Syrian crisis. Surely we must all say amen to that. But I would argue that the only way to achieve such a political and diplomatic solution is not to keep pressing for a transitional Government in Damascus, with all that entails, but for all of us, including our partners in the European Union, to work with Syria’s friends and supporters, namely the Russians, the Iranians and the Syrians themselves, to achieve an immediate ceasefire, if only to relieve the humanitarian crisis.

A great deal has been said in recent weeks about the involvement of Hezbollah in Syria, and this no doubt explains the reported aggression by the Israeli air force against targets in southern Lebanon earlier this week. But I think that we should distinguish between, on the one hand, attempts by a Shia organisation in neighbouring Lebanon to protect the Shia-backed Government in Damascus against Sunni extremism and the continued external involvement, on the other hand, of the Sunni Gulf states in what I have repeatedly described in this House as a Sunni-Shia, if not Arab-Iranian, war—an involvement which is seriously exacerbating sectarian violence in both Syria and its neighbours.

In that context, I hope the Minister can tell the House what we know of current discussions between the United States and Saudi Arabia on whether to provide further lethal weaponry to what are described, somewhat optimistically, as,

“the more moderate and secular rebels of the Free Syrian Army”.

Should we not be cautioning our friends in the Gulf—with whom, as the noble Baroness has reminded us, we have incredibly strong relationships—against pouring further fuel on the flames in Syria? Is it not inevitable that any further supplies of lethal weapons will quickly fall into the hands of those calling for Syria to become an Islamic theocracy? Our friends in the Gulf should be as worried as Her Majesty's Government no doubt are about the risk of young men and women becoming radicalised in Syrian Islamist training camps and returning to spread terrorist ideology at home.

It is clear that the Foreign Secretary and our European partners are taking great care to involve the Russians in how to deal with the current crisis in Ukraine. I hope that equal care will be taken to involve both the Russians and the Iranians in ways to resolve the Syrian crisis. In that context, I hope that the Minister can tell the House how our attempts to normalise our diplomatic relations with both Iran and Syria are progressing—what the noble Baroness described yesterday, in another context, as “constructive engagement”.

Finally, before I turn to the question of Israeli settlements, I would first like to echo the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, to the Israeli treatment of Syrian refugees in their hospitals. But to turn to the question of Israeli settlements, I hope that the Minister can update us on whether efforts by ourselves and our European partners to stop the continued expansion of these illegal colonies have met with any positive response. What representations have we made about the addition of 35 further settlements as national priority areas, or the demolition of Palestinian homes by the Israeli armed forces in the Jordan valley over the past three months?

I commend the decision of the European Union, as I hope will all Members of this House, to prevent all EU states from co-operating, transferring funds, or giving scholarships or research grants to bodies inside these illegal settlements. Indeed, I hope that the Government will not oppose the idea of any further sanctions if, as appears likely, Mr Netanyahu continues to ignore our representations.

14:15

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful to whoever suggested that we have this long-overdue general debate on Syria and the Middle East. I have to say that, because it either takes courage or the proverbial brass neck for any Government to expose themselves to an examination of the past five decades of the UK’s inconsistencies and inadequacies in relation to that part of the world.

I suppose that it is unfair of me to start by referring to the hare-brained idea we had a few months ago that we should commit our servicemen to a bombing operation in Syria. One would have hoped that the very idea of becoming militarily involved in a sectarian civil war would have been the last thing upon which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would have encouraged the Prime Minister to embark—or was the idea just the now-not-unusual reflex reaction to hang on the coat-tails of the US?

How will we now react to the UN proposal that we should look at the possibility of opening our doors to 100,000 Syrian refugees? Given that we left 3,400 Iranian refugees at the mercy of the awful Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq after our contrived venture into that country, and that it has taken us almost 10 years to do nothing about 50-plus of those who would have some identification with the UK—although 17 of the cases are proven—one wonders.

Despite the fact that my friends, retired US General David Phillips and Colonel Wesley Martin, gave me a first-hand account of how they were responsible for disarming Camp Ashraf residents more than 10 years ago, and that even the US belatedly agreed with Europe that the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran was not a foreign terrorist organisation, our compassionate Home Office recently claimed that it still has to consider whether those 17 have any terrorist history. So we do nothing.

I have to be cynical about that, not least in a week in which we learnt that around 200 Northern Ireland terrorists who killed our soldiers and civilians were given an arbitrary and secret absolution for their crimes by government. How long would it take us now to process 100,000—or even 1,000—Syrian refugees?

Meanwhile, we apparently do not concern ourselves with the reality that more than 100 of those unarmed Iranian refugees have been systematically murdered: 52 on 1 September alone. Worse still, the FCO tells us that it does not know who was responsible. What bunkum, at a time when GCHQ, in cahoots with the United States, probably knows what each of us here had for breakfast this morning. How can we stand here and pretend that we have confidence in our own position? In this respect—I know that it is not a Middle Eastern problem, but it illustrates the point—it is ironic that my numerous questions about the status in the UK of Philip Machemedze, a Zimbabwean who has admitted kidnapping and torture, earns the dismissive response:

“For reasons of confidentiality, the Home Office does not routinely comment on the residential status of individuals”.—[Official Report, 29/8/13; col. WA 408.]

What is and has for 31 years been my role at Westminster? What purpose and responsibility has each of us?

Yet this comparatively recent evasion of responsibility for our invasion of Iraq almost pales into insignificance beside the 54-year debacle the UK left in Cyprus after having blackmailed the paedophile Archbishop Makarios into agreeing to the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee; after having seen him rescind much of it, to the detriment of the Turkish Cypriot minority; and after having failed to meet our responsibility as a guarantor power by ignoring the Akritas plan to expunge Turkish Cypriots from the island and the Ifestos plan, which actually detailed the instructions as to where Greek Cypriot forces, including EOKA-B, would dispose of Turkish Cypriot bodies. That attempt to ethnically cleanse Cyprus lasted from Christmas 1963 until the Turkish intervention in 1974. Since then we have for 40 years shamefully vilified Turkey, another guarantor power, for doing what we failed to do. We have abandoned and isolated the Turkish Cypriot community, despite our implied promises that, if they accepted the 2004 Annan plan, injustices would end. To cap it all, we then assented to an EU decision to admit a divided Cyprus as a member.

Did I say, “To cap it all”? If I did, then I retract it. That should have applied to our Prime Minister’s recent aberration when he, without decent or proper consultation, agreed to cede 200 square kilometres of UK sovereign territory to the control and use of the Greek Cypriots. To say now that the UK will consider consultation with Turkish Cypriots is not good enough when we do not even give their politicians or officials the courtesy of recognition. What a hypocritical, arrogant, self-righteous bunch we have become.

I shall conclude by saying that many of us believe that both this and the previous Government do not and did not have a foreign policy worth the paper it is written on and that we have virtually lost touch with reality in the Middle East. Sadly, the increasing lack of practical, hands-on experience in another place over the past 30 years has systematically led the United Kingdom into a bureaucratic quagmire. Worse still, this bureaucratic quagmire has subverted the very basis on which this country has prospered for centuries. It is now subverting the very judicial processes of which we were once so proud and once were the world’s exemplars.

Corruption is no longer a foreign disease. It pervades our society. There is now an inevitable and consequential subversion of justice that we must surely recognise if we look back at Matrix Churchill, at the murder of the Canadian Gerald Bull and at the unprecedented use of more than 30 public interest immunity certificates at the alleged fraud trial—yes, I said “alleged” fraud trial—of Asil Nadir.

There has also been the secret court activity during the past few months in respect of the status of those letters of absolution issued to 187 IRA terrorists in 2006. The Middle East cannot be viewed in isolation. I am grateful for this short interlude to touch on the current incompetence in that area. Perhaps next time we can manage a full day’s debate if we are to hope to fully probe the roots of our strategic failures. On a final word of caution, we must never allow our security forces to bolster the ego of any Prime Minister. Nor, with a little more practical nous in another place, need or should they be sacrificed to Governments’ dubious political distortions or judgmental failures.

14:25

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests. I am the chairman of the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce and have also been involved with several companies on both sides of the Gulf, including some in the past involved with Iran. It was that country that I wanted particularly to talk about today, having in January gone with the parliamentary delegation led by Jack Straw to Tehran. It was in the first week of January but it seems to be an eternity away, and a considerable amount has gone on since then.

We had very good access within the Iranian Government to Foreign Minister Zarif, Mr Nematzadeh, the organiser of President Rouhani’s campaign, now the Industry Minister, and Mr Nahavandian, the head of the president’s office. Almost everybody we met in the Government was western educated. Indeed, it is said that there are more American PhDs in President Rouhani’s Cabinet than there are in President Obama’s. We also, because this was a parliamentary visit, met quite a number of the members of the Majlis, where we met many more hardliners, so we got a feeling of the spectrum of politics within Iran.

There is a lot of argument about whether President Rouhani is a reformist in the Iranian sense, but it cannot be denied that he has the support of the reformist element. His Cabinet is very similar to that of President Khatami. President Rouhani has certainly unleashed in Iran an enormous feeling of optimism on the part of the population, of expectation and a great rise in business confidence. The Government frequently say—and I know that many people believe—that only sanctions have brought Iran to the negotiating table. I would say that that is only partly true. They have had an effect, but it was public opinion, the election and the election of President Rouhani that changed the policy. If the election had gone the other way and Mr Djalili, the previous nuclear negotiator, had been elected, there would have been no change at all.

I believe that there is the capacity for change in Iran. The revolutionaries are ageing and it is moving into a post-revolutionary phase. Of course, there are people who want to keep the spirit of the revolution alive, and we have to be very careful that in our dealings with Iran we do not make mistakes that strengthen them. But Iran has the capacity to evolve without violence and further revolution, whereas I could not express that view about all the countries in the Gulf. Some of them do not have the same capacity to evolve peacefully and will not have the same capacity to evolve into something more akin to a western democracy.

Iran is a complex society, and it does have elements of democracy in it, but it is also an authoritarian state whose record on human rights is extremely bad. We did not flinch at every meeting that we went to from raising the issue of human rights, including that of public executions. The West is right to press Iran on human rights, but it is an issue that should be kept separate from the nuclear issue, which is a prize that is worth winning on its own and could yield considerable benefits to the region and the world.

We discussed the nuclear issue with Foreign Minister Zarif and he professed that he was not very optimistic about the outcome of the talks. I think that the greatest difficulty in the talks is going to be over the objective set out in the initial agreement to reach a mutually agreed definition of a nuclear programme—that is to say, what scale of enrichment should be allowed, if it is to be allowed, in Iran. One can see the gulf in thinking when you consider that Iran currently has 20,000 centrifuges, but in a recent article in the Financial Times Mir-Hossein Mousavi, another previous Iranian nuclear negotiator, pointed out that broadly 100,000 centrifuges are needed—it depends what type they are—for one nuclear power station. Iran has 20,000 at the moment. The other day Wendy Sherman said she could not possibly see why Iran needed 20,000 centrifuges. Of course the West is concentrating on reducing the number of those centrifuges, yet paradoxically it looks as though it wants Iran to reduce the number of centrifuges to a limit which would enable it to produce a nuclear weapon but not to actually power a power station. That does not seem a very sensible approach. I think it would be much better if the West did not concentrate on the number of centrifuges but actually concentrated on transparency, inspection, the additional protocol, the right to go throughout the country and to make undeclared visits. That will be the way in which agreement might be possible.

We spent a lot of our time discussing the nuclear issue but we also discussed the Syrian situation. I agree with everybody who has described that as an absolute humanitarian disaster and I do not for one minute defend the position that Iran has taken. However, Foreign Minister Zarif and others repeatedly said to us—they never mentioned Assad—that they felt the only way in which the situation could be resolved would be through a political solution which led to free elections. I regarded that just as a formula which they trotted out but I notice it is a formula that they use on every public occasion. I suggest that we take them at their word. Of course the idea of elections is light years away in the present situation but we ought to be trying to create that situation. By involving Iran we would be more likely to do that and create a path in which elections could be the ultimate destination.

I believe that Iran regards Syria in exactly the same way that Saudi Arabia and the United States regard Bahrain. They regard it as a very important and strategic interest. They regard Syria as the route to Hezbollah and recall that Syria was of course the only Arab country that supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. I was in the Middle East when the recent unrest first began in Bahrain and I recall that a very well-known senior American politician made it quite clear to me that there would be no change to the regime or fundamental political change in Bahrain. He just said, “We have interests there,” meaning, of course, the fleet. That is exactly the attitude Iran has towards Syria. I think Iran’s links towards Hezbollah and Hamas, which occupy a very different space on the political Islam spectrum, ought to be looked at in the context of Iran’s own security concerns. It regards its links with Hamas and Hezbollah as assets. Iran has a very weak air force. I think it was General Petraeus who said the other day that the entire Iranian air force could be wiped out by that of the UAE in one afternoon. Therefore, alternative sources of firepower—asymmetric responses—are very much part of the strategic thinking. It was once rather brutally put by Mr Larijani, the speaker of the Majlis, who said that if there is an attack on Iran, expect Israel to be in a wheelchair. In other words, the response will come from south Lebanon.

I want to say a word about sanctions and the way in which they are being applied. I hope that we will be very careful during this interim phase. I cannot for the life of me understand why, when we are moving towards a situation in which we want full diplomatic relations with Iran to be restored, we will not allow the Iranian chargé in London to open a bank account. How is an embassy meant to operate if it cannot have a bank account? Yet the Government simply refuse to give any help on this. The banking boycott is causing a lot of ill will in Iran. One of the concessions made in the interim deal was on humanitarian goods such as medicines. Lots of supplies of medicines, which are in great demand in Iran, are not getting through because, although they are allowed to be supplied, there is no access to banking facilities. The West seems to be giving on the one hand and taking away with the other. All this of course is due to US banking sanctions being imposed informally by the back door on our own banking industry. If we wish to frustrate the supply of humanitarian goods let us do it openly, not with subterfuge and methods that are hitting ordinary people. We always said that we did not want the sanctions to hit ordinary people but that is precisely what they are doing because of the boycott being imposed, largely informally, by American authorities threatening banks in the UK.

I say that because the likelihood of a successful outcome in the talks with Iran is only 50:50. It is in the balance. Anything could upset it. It could be upset in the United States or it could be upset in Iran. It would be a tragedy if, in our handling of the sanctions issue, we gave the Iranians any excuse to withdraw from these talks, which I hope will come to a successful conclusion.

14:37

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest, which is recorded in the register, as director of the Good Governance Foundation, which operates in the region. I thank the Minister, not just for initiating the debate but for the way in which she has handled this incredibly difficult issue over the past few years. I should also put it on record that the Library note on the timeline of events in Syria is particularly useful to this debate. I want to focus my comments because this is such a wide issue that I would not wish to range right over it.

I first want to focus the Minister’s attention on Libya. I have had some talks with representatives of the Libyan Government, and it has been clear to me that it is almost impossible for them to achieve stable government without dealing with the problems of divisions within the security services—the police and the army. As the Minister will know, there is a series of armed groups who claim or try to be the police force or the army for the country. Perhaps our Government have done so but we ought at least to explore the option, possibly with NATO and the European Union, of putting some of our experienced military officers in there to try to help disarm and merge the various groups, and try to create at least one major police force or armed unit. Unless we do that, I cannot see how a stable state is going to emerge. The European Union, ourselves and NATO have some experience in that we know about how to negotiate between competing groups, get them to give up arms and introduce other stabilising forces. I conclude my comments on Libya by saying that unless we do something along those lines, it is hard to see how that country can progress to a more stable state.

I turn now to Syria. It is not with any great pleasure that I remind the Minister of my comment in the summer last year—she was good enough to acknowledge that it might come true—that the talks about Syria would almost certainly fail. I thought that they would fail, not on the humanitarian side—I recognise what the Government are doing on that and it is very good—but, as perhaps the debate has already indicated, we are not paying enough attention to the role of Russia.

People talk about the arms going to the various opposition groups in Syria, but the Iranian and Russian arms going to the government side—to the military, in fact—are profoundly important. The reason they are particularly important is that Russia is a sophisticated power with satellites, so it is not only arms being provided: there is good reason to believe that it is also providing intelligence to the Assad regime and military about the whereabouts of the various forces. Of course, Assad has an air force and it is no surprise that the barrel bombs—even though they might go astray at times and hit targets either deliberately or not deliberately—are targeting those areas about which it has information likely to have come from the Russians. I have yet to hear from the Government, either in this House or in the House of Commons, about how much we are engaged with the Russians in trying to get them to pull back some of their support for the regime.

I do not suggest that the Russians will necessarily want to see Assad stay in power, but I think they have a very real interest in ensuring that the military stays in power in Syria. That is why the Russians work closely with it. The Russians have a military base in the area and they want that base. Russians have arms contracts with the Syrians and they have always made it very clear that they will continue to supply according to those contracts. There is no dishonesty about it from the Russians’ point of view; it is just that they believe—and they are not entirely wrong on this—that if they do not back the Assad side, then it will be a failed state. The problem with the Russian position is that we are either facing a military state or a failed state, and neither of those is a particularly attractive option.

We therefore need to know a little more about the Government’s engagement with the Russians on their policy towards Syria. My own view still is that, although there is no clear winner on the ground in the military sense, the military controlled by Assad—or it may be other way around, with the military controlling Assad—is winning more ground than various opposition groups. That is really why I said a year or so ago that I believed that the talks would not succeed: because as long as the regime in Syria thinks that it can gain ground through military advances, it is not in its interest to engage in talks. That is why I found myself in agreement today with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about a plan B. I do not have any suggestions about what that plan B should be, but I understand—the noble Lord, Lord Wright, mentioned this—that if it is true that the Russians are determined to keep the military in control of Syria, rather than the various other opposition groups, then, frankly, that is what we might have to live with in times to come. If so, we had better have a policy about that; it is very hard to see what we could do otherwise.

The Russians are big players in this. Russia and Iran have a very real interest, and I do not doubt that they would deliver on ensuring that weapons of mass destruction are not used by the Syrian armed forces. It is in Iran’s interest, not least because it was on the receiving end of weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein. From the Russian point of view, it is because its world image is so awful, but I do not think it is true to say that the Russians do not have an interest in making sure that the military stays as the primary force in Syria. That points to a military dictatorship of some type, except in the very unlikely event that one of the other groups comes forward as a winner.

A number of people in recent months have made the comparison with Spain in the 1930s. Obviously, the differences are far greater than the similarities; but the one similarity we should all be aware of is the problem for the western nations: they look at the opposition and see this diverse group which is unable to deliver a proper government while at the same time seeing a military Government who are unacceptable in everything that they have done and look like doing.

The world goes through various phases of supporting or being against intervention. You can go back much further than the post-war years to find policies on intervention, but we all believed in intervention when we found that we could work in certain areas. We tried Somalia and burnt our fingers there—or, rather, the United States did—so we promptly refused to intervene in Rwanda and 1 million people died. We intervened in Iraq but the post-conflict situation was dealt with so poorly that it went badly wrong again. However, who is really arguing that non-intervention in Syria is good for humanity? Of course it is not, but that non-intervention is a failure of the United Nations.

At the end of the day, it is possible to intervene in these states but you can do so only if all the major world powers are in agreement. That is our problem—we do not have that agreement. We should remember that it was only about two or three years ago that there were discussions in this House and the House of Commons about the new concept of a responsibility to protect, drawn up through reform of the United Nations. At the moment that has gone, and I am afraid that it will stay gone until we get agreement among the great powers. That is particularly difficult while Russia, most notably, but also China are opposed to intervention, unless of course it is close to their own borders in the case of Georgia and—one hopes not, but possibly—Ukraine. At some stage we need to reopen the argument in the United Nations about a responsibility to protect and what we do when we are faced, as we are in Syria, with the alternatives of a military Government who have been behaving appallingly by any standards and a series of groups, all of which would equal a failed state if they came to power.

I ask the Minister to respond particularly on the point about Libya. Otherwise, I thank her for what she has been doing in this field. Her knowledge of the religious conflicts in this area is very helpful.

14:46

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has said, especially about Russia. Syria’s collapse into civil war is the whole world’s concern. This country, having a lot of experience in the Middle East, has played a leading role, not least, as my noble friend Lord Maginnis said, in getting it wrong at least once. My chief concern today is Britain’s reputation not just as a Security Council member but as a host country to refugees from Syria. I offer no political solutions to the crisis itself but I know that, of all people in the world, Lakhdar Brahimi has the qualities and the experience to solve it, and it is hard to imagine anyone else equalling him. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Williams will agree with that because he has already said it. I would only advise Her Majesty’s Government to do their utmost to keep Russia and Iran on side if any progress is to be made. There, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and my noble friend Lord Wright, who, incidentally, mentioned the important question of the settlements, which is tending to get ignored.

The desperation of Palestinians in the besieged camp of Yarmouk in Damascus has already been mentioned. Access to humanitarian aid is, as always, the vital issue. The international community has failed again to deliver aid where it is needed. Médecins du Monde, Chatham House and others have made practical suggestions for local ceasefires and improved access for the relief agencies through the UN and the ICRC. This remains an important priority for our Government, even if we cannot yet achieve a lasting peace. If the noble Baroness has any detail on that, I would be grateful to hear it. Aid workers are running enormous risks in Syria, and we need to do much more to support them.

We have been generous with humanitarian aid, as we would expect, being one of the world’s foremost aid givers. I do not quarrel with the amount we are giving but I do question our basic philosophy, which is to support the neighbouring countries rather than a wider programme of world involvement and resettlement. At first sight, this policy of supporting the neighbouring countries seems sensible because the ties between Syria and its neighbours are considerable and refuge appeared to be temporary at first. Turkey’s welcome to the earliest refugees in particular stands out as an example. But these neighbours are now stretched to the limit, as we have heard, and as a result the UN is looking to the long term.

Syrians in northern Iraq have already been living in abandoned houses and even animal shelters for two years—up to 20 people per home without proper nutrition. Many who are out of reach of international aid depend on the generosity of their Kurdish hosts where food may be already scarce. A Christian Aid visitor, for example, found refugees crowding around a vehicle carrying trays of cooked rice and chicken, all provided by the local people from their own resources. We tend to forget that in these situations. On top of this many displaced Iraqis are now fleeing northwards to escape newly escalating violence engendered by the al-Qaeda groups and freelance militia, both Sunni and Shia. Lebanon is also carrying a huge burden on top of its own problems. Many Syrians who arrive in Lebanon after long journeys, often without money or possessions, cannot reach UN protection and depend completely on the help of local Orthodox churches and charities which also help with health and education. Refugees who are bombed out of their homes and schools may also need psychosocial support to help them cope with the emotional impact of living through conflict. In Jordan most services to refugees are said to be close to breaking point.

I can well remember the warm reception given in the late 1970s to the Vietnamese boat people after the wars and massacres of the Vietnam War and its aftermath in Indo-China. As a country we responded well to UN and charity appeals and churches and communities all over the UK were alerted. I am sure most of us remember this. I was on the staff of Christian Aid at that time and I recall that thousands of people were accommodated with British families and that it was an efficiently run operation. What a contrast with Syria today. Here we have nearly 2.5 million refugees in four neighbouring countries, many overcrowded and undernourished, and thousands applying for resettlement in Europe. They have little prospect of returning home and yet European countries are not exactly jumping forward with offers. The UNHCR is asking for 30,000 places this year and 100,000 long-term. Our Prime Minister said three weeks ago that we must act urgently but we have negotiated a figure of only 500 out of the 18,800 places offered by 20 countries. Germany alone is said to be receiving 11,000. Here we may remember for a moment Chancellor Merkel’s powerful appeal to European nations to work even more closely together, and this applies to asylum as much as everything else. It is true that in the year up to last September the UK accepted 1,100 Syrians refugees, which is the third highest number after Germany and Sweden, and the Home Secretary says that 3,500 are already in the UK. But none of those was actually invited; they somehow managed to get here after an exhausting journey of weeks or months.

So what has happened since the 1970s? Wars and massacres continue and the suffering and risk from chemical weapons is equally serious, if not more so. Was there anything special about the Vietnam War and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or about the vulnerability of the Vietnamese who took to sea to persuade us to be more hospitable? Syrian families are, if anything, more easily adaptable to British home life, and their standard of living in many cases was previously comparable to that of many people in the UK. I cannot answer these questions. I know that the level of immigration is now much higher than it was then and that that has affected our sense of hospitality. A combination of migrations from eastern Europe and the troubles of the Middle East and north Africa have generated new fears in the minds of some of us that this country is losing its intrinsic character and culture. These fears, of course, are groundless because we have absorbed migrations over many centuries and indeed we depend on them. None of that should affect our attitude to genuine refugees who are in a quite separate category. They are not deliberately choosing a new life elsewhere but are reluctantly fleeing war, persecution and hunger.

I know that this is not primarily the Minister’s problem but it does belong in our overall response to the crisis in Syria. The only question I would put to her today is about Greece and its frontiers. Are the Government satisfied that the FRONTEX programme, supported by the European Union, is providing a secure border with Turkey? We hear many conflicting stories about that. Would she describe recent reported actions by the Greek Government against the Syrian boat people as refoulement, or as sensible immigration policy?

14:55

[Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)]

My Lords, we are holding this debate almost three years since the outbreak of the civil war in Syria—a war that has already claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people and left in its wake more than 1.5 million refugees. Despite the length of this conflict, the international community has struggled to contain the war, let alone bring an end to the violence and restore peace to Syria. In the length of the conflict, its nakedly sectarian nature and the inability of the international community to reach a consensus, it reminds me all too often of the war in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, where I served with the UN. Then as now, we struggle to bring humanitarian relief to the victims of the war and, despite all the hopes after the Yugoslav wars that a new era in the international management of conflict had dawned, those hopes have been dashed. Those hopes gave rise among other developments to the doctrine of the responsibility to protect—R2P in shorthand. The sad fact is that we have been unable adequately to protect the people of Syria.

The dangers of the conflict spreading to neighbouring countries, and especially to Lebanon, have been noted by many speakers this afternoon. On a visit to Lebanon a few weeks ago, I found UN colleagues anxious about the growing sectarian violence within the country and the extraordinary burden of more than 1 million refugees, equivalent to a quarter of the Lebanese population. Can one imagine 15 million refugees arriving in the United Kingdom and how we might cope? I pay tribute to what our Government have tried to do to help the Lebanese and to the extraordinarily able and energetic Ambassador Tom Fletcher and his staff in Beirut. Despite their efforts and those of many other countries to help Lebanon, the trends are not good. There have now been at least five bomb attacks on the Shia district of Beirut, Dahieh. The country’s second city, Tripoli, is wracked by periodic but sustained violence between the majority Sunni population and an Alawite minority openly supportive of the regime of President Assad and his Lebanese ally, the Shia militia Hezbollah. A few days ago there was an Israeli air attack on an alleged Hezbollah convoy. There have also been assassinations—above all of the former Finance Minister and leading moderate, and a personal friend, Mohammed Chatah, whose death by murder on 27 December last year I mourn.

Hezbollah, deemed by many to be the most heavily armed non-state actor in the world, was born during the 1980s Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and played a considerable role in prompting the eventual withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon. Its focus now is elsewhere: fighting fellow Arabs and fellow Muslims in Syria, who have dared to challenge Assad’s regime. That action, strongly supported by Iran, has left an Arab world dangerously divided between Sunni and Shia, which will take many years to heal. I hope that, in their necessary dialogue with Iran on the critical nuclear file, the Government and our colleagues in the P5, as well as Germany, are taking issue with President Rouhani and warning of the dangerous course that his Government’s allies are following in the Arab world. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify that.

I take this opportunity to welcome the two rounds of talks held in Montreux and Geneva under the able chairmanship of the veteran UN diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi. Of course it is disappointing that more was not achieved, but we should take some comfort from the fact that the talks did not break down and that no party walked out. Moreover, between the first and second rounds in Geneva, the head of the Syrian National Council delegation, Ahmad Jarba, visited Moscow, where he was received by the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergei Lavrov. This was certainly not welcomed in Damascus. Russia is now in the unique position of being the only P5 member with relations with both sides of the conflict in Syria.

The next important development was the adoption, which I warmly welcome, of Security Council Resolution 2139 last Saturday by unanimous approval of the Security Council. The resolution called on all parties,

“in particular the Syrian authorities”,

to allow unhindered humanitarian access for the UN. It also strongly condemned the use of barrel bombs, which, of course, are used by only one side to the conflict. In the light of this resolution, which offers some hope, I call on the Government to redouble their efforts with the Russians and the Chinese to find a negotiated end to this conflict. There has, I believe, been a subtle change in the position of the Russian Federation.

Diplomatic efforts need to be intensified. I believe that it was foolish in the extreme that the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, seemingly had to withdraw his invitation to Iran to participate in the Geneva peace talks. If there is to be a negotiated settlement, diplomacy has to be inclusive, not exclusive. I have always believed that the model in this regard was the hawkish and viscerally anti-communist Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. In 1954 in Geneva, he was appalled at the prospect of shaking hands with the Chinese statesman and Foreign Minister, Chou En-Lai. In colourful language not appropriate in your Lordships’ House, he refused to do that. The point is that Dulles sat in the same room with representatives of a Government that the US had been fighting for the previous three years in Korea. If Dulles could do that half a century ago, the West should have been able to do so a few weeks ago in Iran.

This war has seen appalling acts of violence, cruelty and brutality that, in many cases, almost certainly amount to war crimes. Before Syria, it had become accepted that the international community would not tolerate such crimes. In the Balkans, we saw the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I myself testified against former President Slobodan Milosevic, as well as the commander of the Yugoslav army, General Perisic. A special tribunal was formed for Sierra Leone, which has seen Charles Taylor indicted and tried. Above all, there has been the formation of the International Criminal Court, which has seen, among others, President al-Bashir of Sudan indicted.

It cannot be that Arabs and the Syrian people are less deserving of justice. As a P5 member we have a duty towards them. I would welcome any thoughts that the noble Baroness might have of government thinking in this regard. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which this Government and their predecessor have strongly supported, is now conducting a trial, in the absence of the accused, of the suspected killers of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and others in 2005. I ask the noble Baroness whether any thought has been given to extending the mandate of that court to look at the murder of Mohammed Chatah, who was killed in an almost identical fashion, by a massive car bomb, only a few streets away from the 2005 killing.

In Syria, we have few good choices. Absent a willingness by the Obama Administration to take a more forceful stance—for example, a no-fly zone, which had an impact in Bosnia—a negotiated settlement is the only option. We cannot do less for the Syrian people and we must do more to intensify our efforts.

15:04

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, as the world recovers from the deepest, longest and most diffused economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s—I should emphasise that the recovery has been slow and erratic, with the resumption of growth and prosperity remaining fragile—another cloud threatens global stability and security. This cloud—and it is a deepening and darkening cloud—is jihadist terrorism against large areas of the world. Although aimed primarily at the West, few areas remain entirely safe.

The most notable and fearful threat is that it is becoming joined-up terrorism. The fundamentalist Islamism from which it stems is widely diffused through not just much of the Middle East but also north, central and east Africa, China, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Caucasus. The organisations which are planning the terrorist operations are a coalition of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front and a number of other splinter groups. All share the overall aim of creating theocratic states under Sharia law, with the eventual aim of a worldwide caliphate.

If anyone doubts the threat to this country, let them read the evidence given in public on 7 November to the Intelligence and Security Committee by the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. There is huge danger to us from the radicalisation of young Muslims in the UK. As of now, it would be an exaggeration to say that it threatens peace on the scale of the Cold War but, significantly, on jihadist terrorism, all five permanent members of the UN Security Council are in the same camp. Thus, there should be hope of using the UN to authorise measures, thus legitimising them in international law, to reduce the threat—perhaps developing the responsibility to protect doctrine, which has already been referred to.

I want to refer specifically to only three countries: Syria itself, Israel-Palestine and Egypt. On Syria, I say only that we have probably been on the wrong side from the start. That came from the naivety of assuming that the Arab spring was akin to our Enlightenment, automatically leading to tolerance, freedom of thought and thence to western-style democracy.

The fact is that all dictators are undesirable, but only some are true monsters—such as Saddam and Gaddafi, who richly deserved their fate. Others, such as Bashar al-Assad, are forced into monstrous behaviour by events. In this case, we have given western moral backing to a loose alliance of about 20 rebel groups who now appear to be dominated by the ultra-Islamists. Their victory would lead to a repressive theocracy. It is no coincidence that Israel, whose policies in world affairs are always very pragmatic, has never come out for the removal of Assad, although Syria is hardly its best friend. Thankfully, in August, the House of Commons vetoed British participation in an ill conceived military strike against Assad.

The Israel-Palestine situation is entering an even more serious phase. It continues to drop its poison into the region and more widely, providing the leitmotif for the jihadists and making it ever harder for moderate Islamic interests, such as Fatah, to negotiate a long-term solution. In Israel, however, the West Bank is not a top domestic issue. Most Israelis have never been there and have no wish to do so. The politics of a Palestinian state are not an easy option for Prime Minister Netanyahu, especially while there is relative calm. Secretary of State Kerry has shown himself totally committed to producing a settlement based on the two-state solution so long and widely advocated, which has, incidentally, been steadily gaining support in the United States. Originally, Kerry set a nine-month framework for results. That was six months ago. There are concerns that President Obama may be about to announce changes to the terms of reference, which, far from moving towards a solution, could close options and escalate instability on the West Bank, providing welcome sustenance for Islamists.

On Egypt, I would like to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Stone, said. With the noble Lord and others, I had the opportunity earlier this month to spend two days in Egypt as part of the all-party parliamentary delegation from both Houses. This was sponsored by the Farid Khamis Foundation, which created the British University in Egypt, of which the noble Lord, Lord Stone, is a trustee. We met, among others, interim President Mansour, Prime Minister Beblawi and the Foreign and Interior Ministers. Perhaps most importantly, we had two hours with the Defence Minister, Field Marshal Sisi, who is also head of the armed forces. We were told we might get half an hour, but it would be more likely to be 15 minutes. When we got there, he started by saying how much he liked England because he had such happy memories of his time at Camberley in the staff college. That is a little lesson, perhaps, in the importance of welcoming people in the role of student at whatever institution in this country.

The Muslim Brotherhood Government of President Morsi, elected in June 2012, of which many had such high hopes as a more moderate version of the old Brotherhood, rapidly reverted to its ideological roots. It aimed for an Islamic state with a theocratic Government that would resurrect the Islamic caliphate, and introduced a new Islamic constitution in December of the year they were elected. Morsi released from prison the Brotherhood Islamist who assassinated, in October 1981, President Anwar Sadat. President Sadat had offered peace to Israel in November 1977.

Morsi then released those who bombed the tourist bus on the Nile. Most serious was that Morsi arranged for some 600 Islamist fighters to enter Sinai from neighbouring countries. They are now causing mayhem. Their removal is a top military priority for the Egyptians. Equally, al-Qaeda threats against tourists are intended to sabotage a crucial element of Egypt’s very fragile economy. By December 2012, Egypt’s economy was virtually paralysed, and an IMF loan had to be delayed. From early 2013, violent street protests, with many killed, resulted in the army trying to get Morsi to hold a vote on his policies as things went from worse to worse, with massive unemployment and no means to reduce extreme poverty in the country. In July, the army stepped in to remove him. An interim, mainly technocratic, Government was formed. The Muslim Brotherhood was banned as a terrorist organisation. This was almost certainly a mistake because it has hundreds of thousands of supporters. However, there is no reason why there should not be a Salafist candidate to represent Sunni hardliners in the presidential election, although they are not exactly the flavour of the month.

Egypt now has a new constitution, drawn up by a committee of 50 under Mr Amr Moussa, formerly the Secretary-General of the Arab League. Most significant is that any president is limited to two four-year terms, which reduces the risk of another long-term military leader like Mubarak. Sisi is likely to stand and my own impression is that he would make an effective leader of vision and integrity. The fact that the Minister of Defence will continue to be the head of the armed forces reflects the special position that the army has in Egypt as the ultimate guardian of the people. Then in three months’ time, there have to be parliamentary elections. Egypt is in every sense a country of world importance. We owe it to ourselves as much as to the Egyptians to do all we can to help them.

Finally, my overall conclusion is that we in the West really must stop trying to tell other countries how they should run their own show, which is so often counterproductive. It is indeed a tragedy that the United States, which is fundamentally one of the most generous and well meaning countries in the world, has succeeded over several decades in using its military power to reduce its world influence. We must draw the true lesson of the Enlightenment, which is about the need for despotic government to be replaced with constitutional government subject to the rule of law and the fullest use of free thought, from which science and technology can produce the prosperity which underwrites stability.

15:16

[Lord Noon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this timely debate. I am clearly surrounded by noble Lords who have great experience of the situation in Syria and the many issues and tensions in the Middle East. The Syrian situation is complex and evolving. Noble Lords have mentioned a great many issues, including extremism, the use of chemical weapons, the role of Iran and the Geneva peace talks. In respect of Syria, I simply reinforce what my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander said in the other place about the importance of continued humanitarian aid being available to the many people who are suffering from this tragedy. The United Nations has estimated that 100,000 people have been killed during this conflict, a number which continues to rise with each day that passes.

In the time available today I wish to focus my attention on Bahrain, a country in the Middle East that has also had some bad press in relation to human rights abuses but which, I would argue, is genuinely trying to address these issues. The Minister will be aware that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the Commons criticised the Government of Bahrain for their slowness in implementing some of the recommendations of an inquiry which had been critical of the role of the security forces during the civil unrest there. I believe that much has changed in Bahrain and hope to present some of the positive actions taken in recent times. It is important to state that I personally know the region and country well, having visited it many times and owned a number of businesses in Bahrain. If any noble Lords would like to discuss my business experiences outside the Chamber I would be more than happy to meet and chat to them, and lunch is on me.

Suffice to say that I found Bahrain’s judicial system very open and transparent. I will give your Lordships an example. On one of my trips to Bahrain, I had to transfer power of attorney to my Bahraini partner and a legal document had to be signed in the presence of a judicial magistrate. When I went to sign the document, the magistrate asked if I had read it. I explained that I had not as the document was in Arabic, a language I am unfamiliar with. He told me that I could not sign that document if I had not read or understood it. He then called on a translator to go through the document with me line by line. Once he was satisfied that I had read and understood the document, he allowed me to sign it. This is but one example of a personal experience that highlighted to me the integrity and transparency that exist in the country.

I also found Bahrain to be tolerant of all religions. I visited many mosques, churches, synagogues and gurdwaras; it should be noted that the Bahraini ambassador to the UK is a Christian woman and the former ambassador to the USA was Jewish. I could give many more examples, but unfortunately we do not have time in this debate today.

Let me focus on the critical steps that Bahrain has taken in the past two years, particularly in addressing allegations of human rights abuses. Bahrain was the first country in the Gulf to establish an independent ombudsman at its Ministry of Interior. This was a recommendation of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, which was set up to investigate allegations of police misconduct and improper treatment of prisoners. In fact, reform has gone beyond what the commission recommended and Bahrain maintains a zero-tolerance policy towards torture. The commission has already investigated more than 80 complaints, many of which have subsequently been referred for criminal investigations. The recommendations contained in its report on the infamous Jaw prison are currently being implemented by the Ministry of Interior. Jaw prison has been notorious since its creation, particularly with regard to political prisoners, as many noble Lords will be aware. However, following the report, with its 18 recommendations on how to improve the situation in the prison, things have improved greatly.

The introduction of the special investigations unit is another recent institutional reform. This unit at the Bahraini Attorney-General’s office, which was originally tasked with ensuring that allegations of torture and mistreatment during the events of 2011 were investigated thoroughly and that those responsible were held accountable, has become a permanent prosecutorial body to investigate and prosecute all instances of torture. It has investigated more than 150 complaints, some received directly from victims and others proactively gleaned from social media. Of these, 30 have resulted in the prosecution of 51 officers.

Moreover, a draft law is currently under review by the Bahrain Parliament to ensure that the reformed National Human Rights Institution is a fully independent body. It was founded in accordance with the Paris principles and will be capable of investigating and reporting on all types of human rights violations without government interference. Prominent Bahraini human rights activists have already been appointed to the newly constituted board of the institution.

A few days ago a royal decree was issued naming the members of the Commission on the Rights of Prisoners and Detainees, which will be presided over by the Ministry of Interior ombudsman. This commission is tasked with monitoring places of detention in order to prevent torture and ill treatment.

I hope the Minister will agree with me that Bahrain has made some serious progress towards addressing its negative portrayal in the media. I was heartened by her words when she said that the UK recognised Bahrain’s groundbreaking reform programme.

Finally, we should not underestimate the relationship between the UK and Bahrain. In 1820, Bahrain signed the General Maritime Treaty with the United Kingdom and became a British protectorate. The treaty dealt with trade, security and travel, and also strengthened the defence relationship between Bahrain and the UK. The UK maritime component command is based in Bahrain. This is vital for keeping shipping lanes and the Strait of Hormuz open.

In 2005, the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the King of Bahrain, Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifah, released a joint statement saying that the two countries,

“have a strong, warm and longstanding relationship, rooted in our friendship over the years and in the 1971 Friendship Treaty”.

Around 7,000 Britons work in Bahrain and many Bahraini students study at educational establishments in the UK. There are also around 250,000 Indian professionals and business people living in Bahrain, which is helped by the friendliness and the welcoming attitude of Bahraini people. I hope that in her summing up the Minister will be supportive of my observations of the progress that Bahrain has made.

15:25

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for obtaining this debate and for introducing it with such a helpful scan of Syria, the Middle East and north Africa. I draw to the House’s attention my registered interests in the region, particularly in trying to deal with conflict in the region.

Many noble Lords have picked on a number of particular countries in which they have a special interest or concern. That is a very appropriate thing to do in the context of this debate, but I shall take a line directed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. He pointed out the need for us to have a clearer strategic approach to understanding the problems of this region. While it is true that the same thing is not happening in every country in the region, something is nevertheless happening in the broader region and we need to understand it. We need to evolve and develop our own way of addressing the problems.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has directed us to three issues: Iran, when he said that he hoped our Government and others would maintain some progress and momentum in dealing with the nuclear question; relationships with Saudi Arabia; and containing the Syrian problem. I shall start with the last of those issues.

From the very start I cautioned against any kind of military intervention in Syria. I said that it seemed to me that the internal problems were not amenable to our engagement and resolution and that what was critical was to try, in so far as possible, to limit the spread of the developing disorder and chaos. Part of the process of doing that is to try to give support to Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey—a front-line country which has been mentioned a few times in this debate but which has perhaps not received as much attention as it deserves as a NATO ally that has engaged very thoughtfully in this situation. The Government have put a substantial amount of money, time and effort into giving support, perhaps particularly in Lebanon and Jordan but also in Turkey. We had the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey here a week or so ago and he welcomed the assistance that has been given. This is very important. It is one of the positive and constructive things we can continue to do and where we can continue to give a lead.

I am afraid that when the question of military engagement arose the Government seemed to jump with much too great an alacrity to agree despite the bad experiences that we have had with it over some time. Why was that? I have the impression that “engagement” seems to be seen in military and force terms, and that much of our foreign policy seems to be a matter of “Let’s see what our American colleagues say and give them as much support as possible”. In fact, on some issues—particularly the Israel-Palestine question—that is the answer I have received when I asked officials at the Foreign Office what precisely is our policy. “We will wait and see what John Kerry says, we will wait and see what happens, and then we will support it”. Of course one wants to support one’s friends, but you are not a terribly useful friend if the only thing you have to say is, “I agree with Nick”. It is really rather important to say, “I hear what you say and I am sympathetic to it but here’s another perspective”. When it came to dealing with problems in my part of the United Kingdom, our friends in the United States were perfectly capable of taking a very different line from Her Majesty’s Government and, in the end, helpfully so.

Therefore the notion that one might take a slightly different view or have another perspective is not an unhelpful thing; frequently it is a very helpful thing. We should inevitably have a different perspective from the United States, not least, of course, because of our long history in many of these regions, especially the Middle East itself; but particularly because the United States is coming as the only superpower and we are coming from a very different perspective of having limited power, but substantial understanding. At least, that was the case in the past.

What kind of perspective can we bring and what kind of strategic approach can we increasingly develop? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, talked about Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia on the other. He and other noble Lords have indicated also that these are not allies; that in fact they see themselves very much as competitors for hegemony in the region and also, incidentally, with Turkey. If we are going to maintain relationships with both of them, perhaps we can make a useful contribution. It has been mentioned that Russia is the only member of the P5+1 that has relationships with both sides in the Syrian context and therefore has a very special role.

That is the first lesson we need to learn in our strategic approach: that it is important for us to maintain channels of communication with as many sides as possible in all these problems. It is not helpful for us to line up behind one side or the other—and not only because we frequently appear, ultimately, to pick the wrong side, although that is a good reason in itself. If you are not a real powerhouse, then the power you can bring is your capacity for relationship and communication. A great deal can be achieved if we can use the relationships we have had in the past and others that we develop as time goes on in order to play a particularly useful role. We have fallen down on that. I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage us that the increased investment of money and resources in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will help us increase our communication with all sides. That will mean taking political risks and having more political openness.

The second thing is to deepen our knowledge and understanding of many of these areas. Before I came to this area of work, a quarter of a century or so ago, I harboured the notion that our Foreign Office was far and away the most knowledgeable, understanding and sophisticated organisation of its kind anywhere in the world. However, the more I got involved and the more time passed, the more I found myself becoming rather disappointed. I found that it was increasingly inward-looking and not frightfully interested in advice, understanding or experience from others outside the service itself, including from parliamentarians, and that because of that it developed a kind of groupthink about what was actually happening that frequently was not very well informed by understanding.

I will give noble Lords an example. There has been an assumption for quite a long time—although we are not of course the only country that makes this mistake—that when engaging in countries that have conflicts going on in them, it is key to identify the social and economic drivers because those countries are rational actors, operating in their own best interest. That is simply nonsense. They are devoted actors, frequently acting in ways that are not in their best social and economic interests. The more deeply they are embroiled in conflict, the more they act not on social, economic and power values, but on what one might describe as sacred values. I do not mean religious values, but values that transcend best social and economic interest. There is lots of research in this area to show that that is not just some kind of airy-fairy notion; it can be measured and described and it affects the way we act. For example, in a situation of that kind the notion from outside would be, “Put some more money in and that will help to oil the wheels”. Not only does that not help the situation, it frequently makes it worse—first, because people react very badly when the things that are important to them are couched in monetary terms; and secondly, because frequently all you do is increase or even create a context of corruption, as there is a whole lot more money around than people can properly cope with.

It seems that we have a capacity to use historic understandings and relationships and a devotion to these kinds of issues that will deepen our understanding—and understanding is one of the things that this country can bring to the party. The noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench knows well how much British counsel, in its deepening of understandings, has frequently helped us to understand these things and engage in a much more constructive way.

The third element, with which I will finish, is that we need to come with a capacity to learn from others in our engagement with them. For example, in working with folks in Tunisia I was struck by the remarks of Sheikh Ghannouchi from the Muslim Brotherhood, who said that you cannot create a democracy simply by having elected structures if you do not have a culture of democracy and a culture that develops all that is necessary for liberal democracy. He is right, yet for decades we have very rapidly brought in institutions based on our experience, and are surprised when the whole thing falls to pieces.

The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the Enlightenment. That was not a light that was switched on and which suddenly enlightened us, but something that took not just decades but centuries of painful emergence. Perhaps that tells us something about what is happening in that region. However, we also ought to be prepared to learn not only how it really is in some other places but how it might be better for us. There are things about the way in which we deal with our economy in which we depend entirely on monetary values. In some of those countries they are trying to develop an economics based more on community values. We cannot only contribute; we can also learn, not just in the context of this debate but in our engagement with those who are living in such terrible circumstances.

15:37

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, when contemplating the recent course of events in the Middle East: Syria’s seemingly unending agony, Egypt slipping back into a military-dominated regime, and Libya struggling to cope with post-Gaddafi chaos, it is far too easy to succumb to pessimism and to allow it to persuade us—and perhaps even to justify—the merits of detachment and inaction. One can hear from time to time in this country when discussing this region the mutterings of little Englanders who say, “Let’s just leave them to get on with it”.

I say that that is easy, but it is quite misguided, even in terms of a narrow definition of our national interest, let alone of the stake we have, as a permanent member of the Security Council and, as with the rest of Europe, as a close neighbour of the Middle East, in that region’s future stability, security and prosperity. After all, for the foreseeable future we will depend on that region for a substantial part of our energy security. It is the origin of a large proportion of the illegal immigrants flooding into Europe, and it represents an all too present threat to us of a new wave of terrorism. All that is without counting the risk of a new regional conflict if the Iranian nuclear problem cannot be resolved by peaceful diplomatic means. Therefore, detachment and inaction would simply be against our national interest, however unappealing and challenging engagement might seem to be.

Engagement need not—and it should not—be seen as favouring military intervention. Here are four elements of such a policy of engagement which do not involve military engagement, to which I would welcome a response from the Minister when she replies to the debate.

Expectations of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva last month were, mercifully, low, so we can afford to salute the persistence and ingenuity of the UN’s mediator, Lakhdar Brahimi, to whom other noble Lords have referred, without appearing to be totally Panglossian. Brahimi has, so far, kept in his hands the slender thread—a very slender thread now—of a process that could lead to a transition to a post-Assad Syria. He has managed to bring some modest relief to the beleaguered citizens of Homs, but he needs help and much wider and stronger strategic international backing if he is to move beyond that. I agree with others who have said that the short-term priority should be to bring humanitarian relief to the citizens of many other places—to Aleppo and parts of Damascus, in particular—who are being starved into submission and bombarded with weapons whose use in crowded, inhabited areas must surely constitute a war crime.

Last week’s unanimous Security Council resolution was, of course, very welcome, although the fact that it is not mandatory must leave us with a little scepticism about how much humanitarian relief will actually get through. I would be grateful if the Minister would say what we are going to do to press the regime in particular, but also, of course, the other combatants, to let humanitarian relief through. Should we not be thinking of ways to increase the pressure on the regime if it does, indeed, block the application of that resolution? Is any thought at all being given, for example, to suspending Syria from its membership of the United Nations General Assembly, a course that was taken with South Africa and with Serbia in the past and which did a great deal to sober those regimes up and bring home to them that they were at real reputational risk, to put it mildly.

Secondly, I shall say a word about the oft-derided Middle East peace process. Perhaps because the spotlight is no longer on the principal participants in that process, the talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, to which the US Secretary of State is so laudably devoting a high priority, seem marginally less hopeless than they have often appeared in the past. Perhaps it is finally dawning on the two sets of protagonists that they can no longer count on the unquestioning support of their external backers. The fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been criticised for even contemplating the possibility that some Israeli settlers might find themselves living in a Palestinian state is surely a welcome first and a sign that some new thinking may be starting to percolate.

Are the Government encouraging the United States to put some proposals or ideas for a comprehensive settlement on the table? Surely, experience tells us that it is hard to believe that without that, any decisive progress will ever be made. It is not the two parties that are going to put proposals on the table who will break the deadlock. What thought is being given to the contribution that the European Union might make to any such settlement? Would it not also be valuable if something was said in public, including about the contribution the EU might make, and also about the sort of relationship that a post-settlement Israel could hope to have with the European Union, a relationship which is obviously extraordinarily important to Israel in the longer term?

Negotiations with Iran, to which several noble Lords have referred, for a comprehensive successor to the interim nuclear agreement reached last November are just getting under way. Can the Minister say anything about the objectives that the Government, together with their partners in the 5+1 process, will be pursuing in those negotiations? What would we, and they, be prepared to put on the table in response to an Iran that could satisfy the international community durably and verifiably as to the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme? That is, what would the end state from our side of that negotiation look like if the Iranians came to the end state that they would want to see on their side? What, too, are we doing to set out the case to those in the US Congress who are contemplating action that could shipwreck the whole process? What action are we taking to bring home to them our hope that they will stay their hand and give diplomacy a chance? We should, after all, be under no illusions. If diplomacy fails with Iran, the risk of a conflict that could draw in other regional players and those outside the region would be real, and the possible consequences of that are likely to be seriously damaging for all concerned, ourselves included.

It is obviously difficult to plot a direction of travel for our policy in the Middle East, which will clearly be prey to insecurity and instability for years and possibly decades to come. But the setbacks that have followed the Arab awakening should not, I suggest, divert us from pursuing the broad objectives of helping all the countries in the region to move towards pluralist democracy, sound market-based economies, the rule of law and respect for human rights and for religious and ethnic minorities. The route that each country takes may well involve more zig-zags than straight lines, as is the case in Egypt. We should not be too prescriptive in our responses. What we should do is to respond with firm support for those such as Tunisia, which seem to be making real progress along that path. Is that how the Government see things?

I am sure that I have overlooked much—Bahrain, Yemen, Sunni-Shia tensions and more besides—but I hope that the main message that the Government will give is that Britain is not about to turn its back on a region that needs to remain a key focus of our foreign policy.

15:46

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, for tabling this Motion for debate today and for the tone that she set in her opening remarks. I refer the House to my non-financial interests as honorary president of UK Copts, a board member of the Aid to the Church in Need charity and a patron of various human rights groups that work in the region.

Earlier in our debate, my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond made an important and authoritative speech. I entirely agreed with his remarks about Syria and later in my remarks I will concentrate on what is happening there today. As he spoke, I reflected that I first met him in 1980 when he was our distinguished ambassador in Syria. With the noble Lord, Lord Steel, I arrived in Damascus on the very day when the war broke out between Iran and Iraq—a war that claimed some million lives. Perhaps in the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has just said to the House, we should remember that.

During that visit, we met with Hafez al-Assad, Yasser Arafat, King Hussein and Anwar Sadat. In our subsequent report, we advocated a two-state approach as the only one likely to achieve sustainable peace between Israel and its neighbours. Our visit was three months after the Muslim Brotherhood had made an assassination attempt on Hafez al-Assad, and his response was then to align Syria with Iran. King Hussein declared Jordan’s support for Iraq. One week after we met Assad, he was in Moscow signing a mutual friendship treaty. Depressingly, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup indicated, the lines in today’s conflict are not newly drawn.

In 1980, I wrote about the repressive nature of the region’s regimes—repressive then and repressive now. Iran’s human rights record remains appalling. Saudi Arabia, referred to in this debate as our strategic ally in the region, also commits egregious violations of human rights and remains one of the deadliest exporters of global terror. Back in 1980, Syria was expelling journalists and massacring dissidents. Surely the failure to see reform, change and sustainable solutions has had these disastrous consequences, nowhere more so than in Syria.

The failure to find solutions now includes 130,000 dead with millions more driven from their homes. Nine million are said to be displaced and 3 million have fled to neighbouring countries. One hundred and fifty thousand families are deprived of their father, 2 million dwellings are destroyed, 2 million families are without shelter and 2 million students without schools. The economy is in ruins, the currency is devalued by 300% and there is growing violence, anguish, division and bitterness every day.

Sarin gas has been used against civilians in the suburbs of Damascus. Barrel bombs have rained down on Aleppo. Citizens have been under siege in Homs and elsewhere, being starved to death. Just over a week ago the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, pointed to what he called “the unspeakable suffering” of the country’s children, with 10,000 children now dead in Syria. The United Nations report published last week details arbitrary detention, ill treatment, torture and horrific abuses of children by both sides including beatings with metal cables, whips and wooden and metal batons, sexual violence, including rape or threats of rape, mock executions, cigarette burns, sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. The report says that the opposition forces too have increasingly “engaged in such acts.”

The “Afghanisation” of Syria, with vast tracts falling under the control of dangerous jihadist groups, would hardly represent progress. We need to hear much more from the Government, and with much more clarity, of assessments of each of these various factions which are largely at war with one another. Describing them as the opposition conjures up images of a coherent and united group akin to opposition groups in parliamentary democracies. We should be very wary of using such descriptions. Take ISIS. It is said that al-Qaeda has cut its links to one of its most deadly affiliates, ISIS—the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. There are also unverified reports, as we have heard, of a possible military confrontation between Hezbollah and ISIS. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what assessment she has made of the continuing use of ISIS suicide bombers, the territory it controls in north-eastern Iraq and its use of radicalised recruits, especially from the United Kingdom? I refer to recruits such as Anil Khalil Raoufi, a British Afghan who was studying engineering at the University of Liverpool and was recently killed in fighting between rebel groups. It is not just United Kingdom students—this week I sent the Minister a report from the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict which talks about the radicalisation of young Indonesian men who have gone to Syria via Turkey. Their director Sidney Jones says:

“Jihadi humanitarian assistance teams now appear to be facilitating the entry of fighters as well”.

It is not just that their presence in Syria fuels fundamentalism—it is that they are being radicalised in the process, posing dangers to the countries to which they return. The problem is exacerbated by the flow of arms into Syria.

In appealing to hatred, many jihadists cite a seventh-century directive which requires Christians to convert to Islam and pay tribute to Muslim rulers or leave. It is being increasingly enforced by extreme Islamist groups, so there is a religious dimension to this conflict. Here perhaps I would disagree on the margin with the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate.

What of the 60,000 fighters of the Islamic Front? Do the Government believe that the Front is capable of producing a secular or plural Syria in which minorities such as those to which I have just referred are respected? Do they have the capacity to be part of a transitional body capable of restoring trust, an almost impossible task in the aftermath of such horror? It was the late King Hussein who offered the wise advice to pray for God’s protection against,

“those who believe that they are the sole possessors of truth.”

These sole possessors of truth represent the biggest stumbling block in finding a peaceful way forward out of this confessional morass and they also represent the biggest danger to Alawites, Druze and Christians, and the rights of women.

Almost 1,500 years ago a wandering monk called John Moschos described the eastern Mediterranean as a flowering meadow of Christianity. That meadow is today a battlefield. Before the war the Christians of Syria accounted for 4.5% of the population. What will it be after the war? Forty-seven churches have been closed; two priests and a nun have been murdered; two bishops, three priests and 12 nuns have been abducted. I have raised these cases with the Minister and gave her notice that I would raise them again today. A new video of the nuns has just appeared with their traditional cross removed from their habit. Do we have any news of their whereabouts and when they may be released by their jihadist captors? What news also, about the Jesuit, Father Paolo Dall’Oglio, kidnapped in July 2013 after entering rebel-held territory? Opposition sources from Raqqah said that Paolo Dall’Oglio had been executed by extremist groups. Do we have any news about that?

I have been looking at first-hand accounts which Aid to the Church in Need has received from Syrian Christians. Typical is this note from Basman Kassouha, a refugee now in the Bekaa Valley area of Lebanon. He says that the militias,

“stormed my house, giving me one hour to evacuate or else they will kill me ... I’m heartbroken. I’ve lost everything”.

The Maronite Bishop Elias Sleman of Laodicea says Christians have been specifically targeted in a number of places. I shall quote him because I hope, as we collect evidence of these sorts of events, none of this will ever be lost to history. He says:

“There are many events that show that Christians are targeted, such as those of Maaloula, Sadad, Hafar, Deir Atiyeh, Carah, Nabk, Kseir, Rablé, Dmaineh, Michtayeh, Hassaniyeh, Knaïeh, and some villages of the Valley of Christians, Yabroud, Aafrd, the Jazirah region such as Hassaké, Ras El-Ain Kamechleh, and many other areas. Christians are increasingly targeted in horrible and unspeakable massacres”.

The mostly Christian town of Saidnaya has experienced repeated attacks by extremists. The fourth attack on the city occurred on 19 January. The ancient site of the Convent of Our Lady on Mount Qalamoun has been frequently targeted by mortars. In Homs, a Dutch priest, Father Van der Lugt, trapped in the old city, described how residents cut off for more than a year developed chronic mental health problems following the breakdown of social order. He says, “Our city has become a lawless jungle”. I remind the noble Baroness of the situation in Sadad, where there was a terrible massacre that some have described as potential genocide. What news of the situation there?

While the quest for peace continues, perhaps the Minister will share with us what we are doing to provide direct help to these beleaguered minorities, what we are doing to stop the flow of arms into Syria, what progress has been made on the removal of the 700 tonnes of priority 1 chemicals, and what happens—as the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, asked—if the deadline for removal of chemical weapons is passed. Even an agreement suspending the flow of arms and foreign militant activists would be a success, because the ceasing of fighting is the precondition for all forms of reconciliation.

Let me conclude by pressing for a response to the question I raised on Monday with the Minister’s noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who is sitting on the Front Bench. I asked whether we are collecting meticulous information of atrocities, and whether in the Security Council we will be referring these matters for prosecution by the International Criminal Court. If the danger of any other country raising a veto against us were to be used as a reason for not doing that, it would bring great dishonour on this country.

15:57

[Lord Risby (Con)]

My Lords, I compliment the Minister, but perhaps I may be permitted initially to mention one Arab country, rather distant from the eastern Mediterranean, namely Algeria, which will be having a presidential election in April.

In January last year, our Prime Minister visited Algeria—the first British Prime Minister to do so—and I accompanied him as his trade envoy. After the horrors of its war of independence, that country suffered a brutal Islamist takeover more than 20 years ago. Some 150,000 people were killed amid scenes of unspeakable depravity, and this has scarred the memories of Algerians collectively. Today, quietly, we have a remarkable bilateral relationship, and a security and defence compact. A massive desire exists there to learn English and our trade has increased appreciably. Because of its energy wealth, Algeria is spending heavily on both its physical and social infrastructure, and I hope that British business will benefit from this. EU monitors will be present for the elections. It is an enormous, diverse country with extremely porous borders. We can only hope that the remarkable stability of Algeria will continue and that our partnership will flourish.

Exactly a month ago, I visited Egypt with the Conservative Middle East Council, following a great number of previous visits over the years as a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. We had a wonderful opportunity to meet a cross-section of Egyptians—not, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood, but including the enthusiastic and optimistic Amr Moussa, who wrote their new constitution, and very senior generals.

I know that we can all agree that what happens in Egypt—as the mother nation of the Arab world and with its strategic importance—is hugely important. I very much welcome the positive comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath. In the past, in discussing policy with the Muslim Brotherhood, we were assured of its commitment to attract investment, to root out corruption and to protect the minorities. As a force in Egyptian politics for more than 80 years, it appeared destined to win—which, of course, is exactly what happened. Many voted for it simply to achieve change, but felt in some instances that the powerful Egyptian army would continue to act as a balance. Unfortunately, despite being democratically elected, the new Government proved a massive disappointment, to say the least, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford observed.

Tourism, which comprises up to 25% of its economy, collapsed and attacks on Copts soared. Public debt and the budget deficit grew dangerously and many parts of Sinai became no-go areas because of terrorist activity. For us and all our allies, all of this has proved difficult after the heady days of the Arab spring. The recent outlawing of the Muslim Brotherhood may well drive it underground. Surely, there is a clear line to be drawn between those who commit criminal terrorist activity and those who support the Muslim Brotherhood and who could never be described as terrorists, but who now face potential and actual arrest and imprisonment.

Meanwhile, despite great efforts, much of Sinai remains off limits, even some tourist areas. The economy is being sustained with generous help from Saudi Arabia and most Gulf states. There will be presidential elections and then parliamentary elections, and at least the security of religious minorities has improved. We need, however, to point out clearly to our Egyptian friends during this period that ultimately, you deal with those who oppose you by securing their hearts and minds as a necessary prerequisite to long-term social, political and economic stability.

What is there new to say about Syria following the effective collapse of the Geneva discussions and the subsequent increase in the rate of slaughter? One thing is absolutely crystal clear: as things stand, President Assad is not interested in dialogue or in a transition process, and he will fight to preserve what is geographically and politically left of his power. In his terms, there is no alternative. It is worth noting that only 5% of Syria’s chemicals weaponry—a figure that I find very difficult even to believe—has been handed in thus far, despite cast-iron assurances that led to the avoidance of further actions against his regime. We need to reflect on the consequences of the breach of this highly important and high-profile agreement.

What is emerging is the splitting of the country in three ways. In the north, the Kurds are essentially and increasingly taking on administrative authority. I note in passing the surprisingly strong relationship that Turkey and Kurdistan have developed. There may be a common ethnic identity with Kurdish Syrians and those in northern Iraq, but there remain significant differences of outlook and Turkey is completely opposed to a future federal structure for Syria. By contrast, other parts of Syria are effectively being controlled by various Islamist groups imposing arbitrary justice and their view of how life should be lived. The stalemate is completed by the resilience of the rump of the Assad regime, supported by the army and, in varying degrees, by Christians, Druze, Alawites and secular Sunnis.

All of us must have pondered many times what Russia's objective is. Initially, it was declared to be the protection of the diversity and secular character of Syria. In practice, entirely the reverse has happened. President Assad, who sold himself as the protector of secularism and of the minorities, has actually brought about their destruction in many instances. The Russians have been offered continuing military, intelligence and commercial engagement, yet it seems that their position essentially remains fixed. I can only conclude that they wish to be seen to stick with their friends, and to make the contrast, fairly or unfairly, with other nations that have interests in the region.

We can applaud Secretary Kerry for his comprehensive involvement in the region. If, indeed, it is possible to come to some further understanding with Iran, echoing the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, then surely discussion must lead to its continuing and substantial support for President Assad. He needs to be brought into a dialogue at some point, however unpalatable that may be, in the absence of any real moves for any resolution.

I conclude on this note. One of the tragic by-products of the invasion of Iraq was the decimation of its ancient Christian community, many of whose members fled to Syria. The Christian culture is now increasingly being marginalised at best, and destroyed at worst, in the region. Some years ago, my very dear friend the Archbishop of Aleppo and I were travelling in his car. He said, “Richard, do you think we will be here in 50 years’ time?”. I replied, “Sadly, and frankly, no”, to which he responded, “I fear you are right”. Last year he was captured—a wonderful and charismatic figure, and a good friend of the Church of England. His whereabouts are unknown. I fear the worst. His personal horror has been tragically replicated with thousands of his fellow citizens.

Of course, we can try, as we do, to give generous humanitarian aid, whether on a personal level or at a collective or state level—but, quite frankly, until countries such as Russia and Iran can be persuaded to bring pressure to bear for a genuine negotiation, this terrible tragedy will continue.

16:06

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate. It is very timely. Earlier in the week, we had the government Statement on Syria and other issues, and we have had another statement from the Minister this morning. Of course, we are all appalled at what is happening: 5,000 civilians dying every month; thousands of refugees in surrounding countries, sometimes in awful conditions; and children wounded and dying, ill and often starving. “What can we do?”, we ask. “Can this carnage be stopped?”.

The Statement made it clear that the Government are in fact doing quite a lot. Finance and aid are being provided, and other Governments are being urged to do likewise. We have undertaken to take in some Syrian refugees. The UN Security Council has unanimously passed a resolution calling for aid, opposing terrorist violence and calling for an end to the carnage. “But what more can be done?”, we ask.

What is clear, however, is that military intervention is simply not an option. The Commons decided against it and there is no indication that other countries would agree to it. I support that entirely. I was against the intervention in Iraq from the very beginning. What is the point of getting rid of a dictator if those who take over afterwards are just as bad, if not worse? This is what has happened in Iraq, where there is still an unacceptable level of violence—and this after a military intervention resulting in thousands of deaths. Work has to be done with the international community and in particular with the EU, the US and Russia. There has been some evidence that, despite its problems in Ukraine, Russia is willing to try to bring pressure to bear on the regime in Syria to end the violence and to work towards some kind of eventual settlement.

As for Iran, this is a very difficult matter. I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said about that. However, it seems clear that the regime has been assisting the Syrian regime in the current crisis. The new President is allegedly more moderate, but the human rights situation in the country continues to be bad, with many public executions and the oppression of women. I and a number of my parliamentary colleagues have been in contact with Iranian refugees in the UK.

There is an opposition organisation committed to democratic change led by a woman with an equality agenda. Groups of its members are in UN-protected camps in Iraq at the moment—Ashraf and Liberty—but, unfortunately, because the present Iraqi regime has extremist links with the Iranian Government, members of the camps have been subjected to harassment and there has even been violence in which some of them have been killed. A number of us protested about this at the time and we continue to do so. I know that from time to time the Government have raised objections about what is happening to these vulnerable people. People in the Ashraf and Liberty camps are entitled to protection and I hope that our Government will continue to press the Iraqi and other Governments on that issue.

I refer to this as an indication of the many complexities existing in the Middle East. People struggle for democracy and for the rights that we take for granted, particularly for women. Traditions and culture are difficult, and it takes a great deal of courage. I hope that we will continue to assist those who democratically aim to achieve change. In that respect I commend the Minister, who recently made a speech in which she urged tolerance on the two major competing groups in her own religion—the Sunni and Shia. In the current situation, including what is happening in Syria, that is very important indeed and I thank her for making those statements.

However, as I said earlier, more international activity, pressure and aid are necessary to bring an end to the dreadful carnage in Syria. An immediate ceasefire, as recommended by one noble Lord, should be tried for, to put a stop to the violence in which so many people are suffering so badly. I support what the Government have been doing, but more should be done to assist the poor people caught up in all this violence.

16:11

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for initiating this very important debate and for doing so with such concise clarity. I remind the House that I am the joint chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Iran Freedom and that in a professional capacity as a lawyer I have advised on connected matters. I am aware that a lawyer stepping into a foreign policy debate may be about as welcome as the converse in your Lordships’ House. Nevertheless, I want to raise some issues on Syria, Iran and Iraq, following on from the comments just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, with whom I agree.

As far as Syria is concerned, as I was thinking about this debate I reflected on Syrians I have known in my life. They have been almost entirely clever, enlightened and resourceful people. Then I reflected on the experience of one of my daughters of being in the sixth form at a school in central London with a popular and very able young student of Syrian origins who is in fact now the wife of President Assad. So some of these issues of Syria come very close to our own experience and they are a shock to us as well. It is indeed shocking that a country full of great history and future potential should be ripped apart by the events that we observe daily. The outrages of the Assad Government are there for us all to see and wholly unjustified. However, we must be careful what we wish for.

My noble friend Lord Howell illustrated the complexity of the political situation in Syria. The rise of heretical, violent jihadism there, clearly financed and fuelled by the Government of Iran, presents a real danger if there is to be regime change in Syria at some point in the future. I also agree with what was said earlier: it is not for us or for the Americans to determine what sort of regime they have if there is a change in Syria, because our models are not necessarily suitable for them, and I agree entirely with the realism expressed earlier by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, on that subject.

It is, of course, in the end for the people of Syria to determine what Government they have, but whatever enabling we do must be aimed at increasing the prospects of sound, enduring government—not necessarily a western model—preferably secular but, above all, pluralist and with a secure and internationally compliant legal system. We all want to welcome Syria after a very long time back into the family of nations with whom we can walk together, whether in the United Nations or elsewhere.

I turn next to Iran. Of course, I support, as I suspect everybody in this House supports, the attempts to negotiate and negate the threat of Iranian nuclear ambition. I share the assessment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, on the importance of that process. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lamont that it is important that there should be business contacts, and they should be legitimate and carefully scrutinised. Equally legitimate and important are sanctions where there are appalling human rights breaches. Although other countries in the world have similar levels of breaches of human rights, few countries with the civilised traditions of Iran have such a high level of human rights breaches. We see these breaches daily. More than 600 executions have taken place in Iran in the past six months, most of them in public—hanging people from cranes. Many of them have not committed criminal offences that we would recognise. Some of them are merely political dissidents. As recently as last Wednesday we heard an announcement by the Ministry of Intelligence and Security in Iran that appeared to commend cutting off one hand and one foot of a prisoner. Surely those are practices that we not only condemn and abhor; they should feature in our negotiations with Iran if there is to be any genuineness in that process.

Nor should we allow the impression that President Rouhani is some kind of Iranian Gorbachev—a view that I believe is gathering credence. He is not. His personal history as head of the security apparatus over many years belies that assertion and the conduct of his Government does not support that proposition. Can the Minister assure the House that the strongest possible representations are being made to the Government of Iran that these human rights abuses are not acceptable and that one cannot simply look at the nuclear issue on its own? If Iran is to be accepted into the family of nations, to which I referred earlier, those human rights abuses have to be dealt with. My noble friend Lord Lamont referred to the large number of American PhDs in the Iranian Government. Even American PhDs allow one to understand that hanging people in public from cranes for non-criminal offences is simply not acceptable in a country that is negotiating with the western world.

Finally, I turn to Iraq, particularly to the residents of Camp Liberty, and formerly of Camp Ashraf, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. There are Iranian dissidents in refuge in Camp Liberty in Iraq. They are persecuted daily. This week they have been refused access by officials of the Iraqi Government to medically prescribed therapy. In the past they have been refused access to communications; they have been refused access to water; they have had their defensive walls removed from around their premises; there have been more than 150 assassinations there; and they have been unprotected by the Iraqi Government. One well understands the difficulty that the Iraqi Government face in relation to terrorism in that country, but it is absolutely clear that Prime Minister al-Maliki for this purpose is a client of the Government and regime of Iran. That is why the residents of Camp Liberty are not being protected.

They do not want to stay there; they wish to go elsewhere. I have been to Albania to meet some of them because Albania has allowed some 200 former Camp Ashraf residents to settle there. I have heard genuine and moving testimonies from individuals. Most of them are middle-class business and professional people, not firebrand revolutionaries. Quite a few of them are old. They need to be treated on a humanitarian basis. We are not treating them that way at the moment, nor are many other countries. It is ironic that Albania is doing so; it is one of those Governments that are treated with a good deal of disdain by the Governments of the European Union. The residents have a complete lack of protection. They are supposedly being looked after, to an extent, by the United Nations, but United Nations officials—like Macavity—are never there when critical events occur. As a result, a humanitarian scandal has erupted.

I urge the Minister to declare very clearly to this House this afternoon that the United Kingdom is in the forefront of international efforts to save the lives of the residents of Camp Liberty and to give them a safe haven elsewhere. I believe that Prime Minister Maliki does not wish to remain a client of the Government of Iran but he needs an awful lot of help if he is to be able to separate himself from the wishes of that Government. If the Iranian regime has any interest in persuading us of its earnest in meeting our concerns over nuclear and other issues, surely the small question, in quantum terms, of the residents of Camp Liberty is one on which they could demonstrate their earnest at no risk to themselves and gain the respect of the rest of the world for their change and their humanitarian approach. I ask our Government to use every effort to ensure that those unfortunate people are protected.

16:21

[Lord Luce (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to follow those noble Lords who have spoken in rather more strategic terms about the Middle East. As we have been reminded, it is nearly 100 years since the break-up of the Ottoman Empire—an empire that gave considerable autonomy to Arab people in return for loyalty and for the payment of the inevitable taxes. However, in the past 100 years, the Arab world has undergone dramatic changes. If you look at the history of the Arabs over centuries, I think that today they are at their lowest ebb compared to some of the great empires that they have had in the past.

As we have discussed so much today, Syria has become the cockpit of regional tensions, exacerbating many of the undercurrents of tension that already existed in the Middle East. The civil war there is just another human tragedy of stark proportions. Currently, as I think we have all agreed, there is a military stalemate after three years of conflict. It is interesting to observe that since 1945 the average length of civil wars has been 10 years. In the Lebanon, of course, it was something like 15 years. In terms of deaths, there were 120,000 deaths in that time in the Lebanon. That has already been overtaken in Syria. Then we have the country fragmentation in Syria broadly into Sunni, Alawites and Kurds—who, of course, constitute something of a challenge to the boundaries since there are some 25 million of them in the region.

The human tragedy of the refugees, of the internal displacements and of the suffering of minorities such as the Christians, has provided a serious challenge to the neighbouring states of Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. Beyond that, we see Syria being used as a proxy battleground by Iran and Saudi Arabia, vying for regional hegemony. We have all talked about Sunni-Shia tensions and conflict. One is reminded of some of the Christian wars that we saw in Europe, and of the infinite capacity of religions to divide within themselves.

I digress for a moment to praise the Minister for the work that she is doing in the Middle East, in this country and elsewhere to promote religious tolerance. She comes from a very special background, a Sunni-Shia background, and her stressing that violent sectarianism is anti-Islamic is an extremely important message to get across. I very much admire the speech that she made in Muscat a few days ago, when she spoke about these issues in a country where there is strong tolerance between Ibadis, Sunnis and Shias, who work in a communal sense.

Then we have the pattern of influence of the international community changing all the time. The West is more reluctant to intervene, often for very good reason. Russia is still playing the great power game, wanting to give America a bloody nose in the Middle East. However, at the same time, there is an emerging common view between us of opposition to the destruction of the jihadis. We see China’s role emerging not only in the Middle East but the world, but reluctant to play much of a part.

Amid all the chaos in Syria and the Middle East, we have fertile ground for exploitation by extremists, and a very divided opposition in Syria itself. Alongside that, the situation in Iraq is getting extremely serious. Meanwhile, on the Arab-Israel issue, we still live in hope that negotiations will be successful, because without doubt it has been a poison in the Middle East for a long time.

The broader picture is the after-effects of the volcanic eruption of the so-called Arab spring—the eternal striving for better systems of accountability and governance, for less corruption and more freedom. There is the great preponderance of young people learning about the world through social media, longing for a better education and for jobs and for an end to stagnating economies. We see continuous, endless struggle.

How should we in Britain and the British Government shape up to deal with all that? I agree with my noble friend Lord Hannay that there should be continuing British engagement, but not of an imperial kind. Instead, it should be of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, talked about: dialogue with friends and exchanging views about our common experiences. In Syria, I think that we can take great pride in what we have done on the humanitarian side: £600 million is a substantial sum of money. I fully support what we are doing. I hope—I should like the Minister to comment on this—that, notwithstanding the stalemate, we are thinking multilaterally about what will happen in a post-conflict situation in Syria, where we must learn the lessons of Iraq.

Thirdly, in relation to Syria, I very much hope that we will do what we can to help to strengthen Jordan. Jordan has a critical role to play. If there is a settlement and a two-state solution, the role of Jordan will be pivotal. Notwithstanding all the other problems that it faces, including that of refugees, we have to do whatever we can to support our long-standing friends there.

I come to the question of Iran and Saudi Arabia; my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup referred to this strongly and powerfully. There has been a long history of mistrust between the West—certainly Britain—and Iran. The nuclear discussion going on now provides us with an opportunity to reduce that mistrust on both sides through the negotiating process. Of course, we all hope for an agreement that is as watertight as possible. I hope that some of the ideas that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, produced on that will be taken on board by the Government to create confidence to move to a comprehensive agreement.

Beyond that, the question is whether Iran intends to be constructive or destructive as a power in the Middle East. Its support for Assad in Syria, and for Hezbollah, and the recent evidence of the use of Hezbollah explosives in Bahrain, seriously undermines any hope of stability. Kissinger once said that Iran would have to decide whether it is a nation or a cause. The key to progress after a nuclear agreement—in the hope that there will be a nuclear agreement—will be that Iran will not only take a more constructive line on Syria, but will enter into dialogue with Saudi Arabia.

I believe that the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran is key to progress in the Middle East in the longer term. Our experience in Saudi Arabia and our long history of knowledge of the Saudi Arabians will be important here. I hope that we will be engaging with them strongly, not only on Iran and Syria but also in the Gulf. The British Government have pursued a very positive policy of developing good personal relationships with the leaders in the Gulf, through the Gulf Initiative. They are constructively helping maintain the momentum towards reform in the fields of corruption, an independent judiciary, representative institutions, and systems of governance and accountability—systems that take into account the history, culture and traditions of those countries.

I want to end particularly with Bahrain. It is a litmus test of wider regional tensions. It has a Shia majority with a Sunni Government. I welcome the renewal of dialogue by the Crown Prince with the opposition and civic society, under the King’s instructions. I welcome the progress in implementing the proposals of the independent commission led by Mr Bassiouni, for example in setting up an independent ombudsman to investigate police misconduct and setting up an independent national institute for human rights to investigate human rights abuses, with activists serving on the board of the institute. We are often very quick to condemn and very slow to praise, and I hope that we will give credit to those in the Gulf who are continuing the work for pragmatic reform.

We must never lose sight of the goal of removing the long-standing sore in the Middle East—Israel and Palestine—with a two-state solution. We hope and pray that there is a prospect of that happening. Positive progress in either that area or in Iran on the nuclear issue—or in both—would give new hope to the people of the Middle East. That is what the long-suffering people of the Middle East most deserve.

16:33

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

I add my thanks to the noble Baroness for initiating this debate and apologise for not being here at the beginning of her speech. I would like to add a comment, however, on her speech. The textual teaching of the Koran prevents any kind of cruelty or violence against any religion of the book and any religion that preceded Islam. Therefore, those who in the name of Islam kill others are going against the textual teaching of the Koran and, thus, are committing a sin.

I also thank and support the insightful views of the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Wright, who expressed the importance of understanding the situation in Iran. I support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for discussions and peace process negotiations.

As a person born and raised in Iran who, of course, does not support the Government but continues to keep a very close eye on their politics, I suggest that any kind of aggressive cutback on medication, on support, on food—any tightening of sanctions—would be entirely counterproductive. Already, Iranians are suffering. People are dying on the street; people are unable to feed their own children. I know of quite well-off middle-class women who have to spend their day queuing for one loaf of bread to feed their families. The situation of hunger in Iran is terrible and the lack of medicine is resulting in deaths across the board.

We really need to think about treating the Iranians more humanely if we expect them to come to negotiations and deal with the West more humanely. It seems that so long as the Iranians are seen as pariahs and treated as the enemy of all the West, they will only go on using their influence—which in the rest of the Middle East is quite considerable, as has been stated. Although they do not have an effective army, they have a very effective voice, and if they are seen as the victim of the West, it is very likely that much of the Middle East will see policies and politics in terms of what the Iranians see.

I might say that I know for a fact that the Iranian people do not wish to have nuclear power. I get told again and again that that is the last thing that they want. However, what they actually need is the possibility of using something as a negotiating tool. What do they have to use? It is only because they started the nuclear process that the West wants to talk to them. The British, who are such masters of diplomacy, should be at the very forefront of the talking—the jaw-jaw and not the war-war. I am sure that the Minister will see to that.

16:36

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Opposition welcome this debate very much indeed. The Government are to be thanked for finding time for it. The Minister should be congratulated on her tour d’horizon at the start of this debate. She has been widely praised, and rightly so, for the work that she does in this field both in this House and outside. I am happy to join in with that praise. We agree with much that the noble Baroness has said on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government and when we come to those matters on which we do not agree, a bit later in my speech, I am sure that she will take note. This is not just a debate to hear Her Majesty’s Government’s views or even those of the Opposition but to learn and hear from all Members of this House, wherever they sit. We are particularly blessed with expertise and what I would call good sense in this field of foreign affairs. We have had further proof of that, if it was necessary, in abundance today.

I give a special word of thanks to those responsible in this case for the note and the briefing pack from our own Library in the House of Lords. I do not know how many noble Lords have had the opportunity of reading it. Even if your Lordships do not have it now, it is well worth picking up from the Library as it is well written and clear. It has been of considerable help to me and, I suspect, to other noble Lords who have had the chance to see it. My noble friend Lord Soley mentioned it.

The tragedy that continues in Syria is of course the background to this debate and it reaches over to many countries throughout the Middle East, whether Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq or Turkey. That is obviously because of the huge influx of refugees escaping a barbaric civil war, while others are brought into this conflict by proxy, interest or design. Syria is centre stage in this debate. Noble Lords have rightly talked about other Middle Eastern countries in their speeches, so I will make a couple of comments on these before concentrating, in what I hope will be a fairly brief speech, on the Syrian question. Of course, in some ways these distinctions are somewhat artificial as what happens in one country—in this case particularly Syria—affects so many others.

On Israel and Palestine, all I have to say from the Front Bench is that we fully back Secretary of State John Kerry in his search for a negotiated settlement. We know that the Government back him too. We particularly admire his persistence and patience. The provocative actions from all sides are much to be regretted. We urge Her Majesty’s Government to continue to give solid support, as we are sure they will, to the Kerry initiative.

As far as Egypt is concerned, recent events are perhaps a salutary warning to many in the West and on all sides of the political debate—and here the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, made the point—who took a rather overoptimistic view of the Arab spring when it first emerged. As my noble friend Lady Symons made clear—her experience and knowledge of Egypt is obviously very great, as is that of other noble Lords who have spoken—there are a vast number of young people in Egypt and its huge, almost overwhelming, birth rate compared with other countries makes us concerned for this potentially great country.

It was refreshing, therefore, in what could be described as a somewhat gloomy debate, to hear the speeches of my noble friend Lord Stone of Blackheath, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, whose recent visits to Egypt have clearly inspired them. My noble friend Lord Stone of Blackheath has been moved to set up an all-party parliamentary group, which we welcome, and his optimistic comments came as some relief today.

Iran has, quite rightly, been the subject of much discussion this afternoon. It is a potentially great country, one that I visited many times as a student as my parents were working for the British Council there at the time. I am afraid that was pre rather than post-revolution, but it was a country one cannot forget, even all these years later.

We support the joint plan of action agreed in November, the terms of which came into force in January. It is our belief that Iran really demands a debate on its own. There are obviously very important views on all sides. We very much welcome the recent visit undertaken by British parliamentarians, including the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who spoke very interestingly about it this afternoon. We welcome the joint plan and congratulate those who were responsible for it. However, as other noble Lords have warned, it is very early days and we must wait to see what happens next. Any steps that sensibly, safely and with due regard to human rights—as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made particularly clear—bring Iran in from the cold are widely to be supported.

The good news we heard about Tunisia and the constitution that has been agreed is another gleam of light in a pretty gloomy view.

I turn now to Syria, where we have been told that the scale of suffering is almost beyond belief. Nearly three years of civil strife have resulted in a sort of dystopian scenario where brutality follows brutality. I am reminded of a book called The Road—I do not know how many noble Lords know of this work by the great American writer Cormac McCarthy—which was made into a film about a post-nuclear scene. I have not been to Syria, and those who have can tell me whether I am wrong or right, but I get the impression that the kind of scene that you see in The Road is very similar to what must be true about large parts of that country.

The right reverend Prelate used the word “myriad”. I use it, too. Myriad opponents to the awful regime of President Assad, some moderate, some decidedly not moderate, fight not only the regime but themselves too. Those who suffer most are, as always when we are dealing with civil wars, the ordinary people of Syria. The number of those who have died, fled to neighbouring countries or been displaced in their own country is very hard to take in. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords for giving us those figures. The effect on neighbouring countries, with huge numbers of refugees continuing to arrive and with economic, political and social problems of their own, must never be underrated by us. In this nightmare world, we must acknowledge with thanks the amazing work done by the United Nations and the many who work for that organisation, including, of course, our noble friend Lady Amos, in her important role. We are proud of what she does.

We the international community cannot shirk our responsibility for this tragedy. Those of us in the West who have such advantages have a special responsibility to do everything we can to alleviate the suffering and to bring the conflict to an end. Our history, as we have been reminded in this debate, and common humanity insist that we do. Of course, we welcome the unanimously backed Security Council Resolution 2139.

The British Government have been generous in the aid they have provided, both inside and outside Syria. It compares well with other countries. Rather later than we should perhaps, this country has accepted its responsibility to accept more refugees. That is very much to be welcomed, but will the Minister tell us how many refugees are now going to be accepted from Syria? What is the latest estimate?

However, the brutal truth is that the UN appeal for Syria remains chronically underfunded. It is no good the UK being generous when other countries are not. Time is against us. The world needs another kick up the backside on this. That is why we are asking Her Majesty’s Government to push hard and urgently for another donors’ conference to be organised. As week follows week, humanitarian needs grow and grow. What possible reason can there be for not instigating a new donors’ conference urgently?

The Government have also been right to back the Geneva II process. Congratulations and great thanks are due to Ambassador Brahimi and others for the incredible efforts that have been made in that regard. Although the new rounds of talks met with really no success at all earlier this month, no one believed that progress would have instant results. Indeed, the agreement made in the first round, on evacuating innocent citizens, was potentially of some significance, and it needs to be referred to. However, our belief on this side is that it is essential to set up, as a matter of some urgency, a contact group made up of countries that have a stake and interest in the war in Syria. At the moment, a proxy war is taking place. Surely if we want to see a realistic chance of a ceasefire—and all noble Lords want to see that happen—it is vital to bring together the United States, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries. Many noble Lords spoke of this. Many noble Lords also urged that Russia should be more a part of any talks that take place with regard to the Syrian war. Many suggested that Iran also should play a part. Saudi Arabia, obviously on the other side, should do so, too. I noticed particularly that the Foreign Secretary said in another place on Monday that he was not opposed in principle to such a group. To us it seems a sensible and timely action. Britain would be particularly well placed to instigate such a move and we think that it should happen soon. Without it the future looks even bleaker than it does with it.

As the Minister knows, we agree with the Government on many aspects of Syria and the Middle East. Where we disagree, we can engage in civilised debate and argument, as we have done today in this House. We do so without the risk of being killed, displaced or becoming refugees or lost in our own country. We are fortunate beyond belief in this country compared with those in Syria and in other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. That on its own—never mind history or politics—puts a special responsibility on us and we cannot turn away.

16:51

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, the debate has progressed faster than we anticipated and I have about an hour and a half left. I assure you that I will not be speaking for an hour and a half; I will try to keep my remarks to just under 20 minutes.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed with such authority to today’s debate, especially for the great expertise of my noble friend Lord Howell, the robust alternative critique presented by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and the moving contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. To my noble friend Lord Alderdice I say that the phrase “I agree with Nick” has served me well on a number of occasions in recent years.

The Middle East continues to be a region in which we see huge conflict, but one where the Government’s long-term vision, in common with Governments and people across the region, is to support a secure, prosperous future, with political stability based on open, inclusive political systems and economies. Since February 2011, citizens of the region have faced deep and difficult political, economic and security challenges. History teaches us that the path to the stable, open and inclusive societies that people across the Middle East have demanded will be neither quick nor easy. However, in the long term stability and security will come, not despite, but because of the political and economic participation of ordinary people across the region.

We have heard today about where progress has been made, for example in Tunisia and Algeria, which my noble friend Lord Risby referred to, and in Bahrain, which was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Noon and Lord Luce.

The momentous changes we have seen across the Middle East and north Africa are at their core about the people of the region demanding more open societies and greater political freedom, underpinned by vibrant economies offering opportunity to all. They are about establishing a more stable and prosperous MENA region based on the building blocks of democracy. It is both a reflection of our values and in line with our interests to support long-term, positive reform. However, in the short term our priority must be—and will continue to be—to relieve the appalling and unnecessary humanitarian suffering. Nowhere do we see that more than in Syria.

The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, asked what further action could be taken in relation to Resolution 2139 and humanitarian access. That resolution has an operational paragraph, paragraph 17, which lays out an intent to take further action in the case of non-compliance. The UN Security Council will keep monitoring through reporting to the Secretary-General every 30 days. That will be the first mechanism if things do not go as planned.

My noble friend Lord Palmer and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield asked about the human suffering in Syria. As I outlined much of this in my opening remarks, more than 9.3 million people are being displaced. Noble Lords have referred to the UK’s total funding, which now stands at £600 million, which is three times the size of its response to any other humanitarian crisis. Our support has reached hundreds of thousands of people across 14 areas of Syria and in countries around the region: Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. UK aid supports food and water for millions of people, as well as medical consultations. However, the right reverend Prelate was right to ask how we can move from this towards a ceasefire. That is why we were so strongly supportive of the Geneva II process. As I said at this Dispatch Box before, that was the only show in town—the only process where we could have made some progress. Noble Lords heard in my opening remarks the concerns that we had about the lack of progress that was made because of the regime’s action.

The noble Lord, Lord Luce, asked what we are doing multilaterally about long-term thinking on Syria. Work with the national coalition has, among other things, focused on that. We are clear that our focus is primarily on ending violence, but the Foreign Secretary announced earlier this week our intention to provide a contribution to a Syria reconstruction fund, which is run by Germany, and we are focusing on healthcare, water supply and food security. On Jordan, we are already providing humanitarian assistance, which is practical assistance both for political and economic reform there, but also support for the local population. That will also help the long-term building in the region.

The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, asked about the destruction of chemical weapons. Of course delays are affecting the timetable for the removal of chemical weapons, which we now think places the 30 June deadline at risk. It is the regime’s responsibility to comply with the UN Security Council resolution by eliminating all its chemical weapons, materiel and equipment in the first half of 2014. The resolution imposes binding and enforceable obligations on the regime to comply, with the threat of action under Chapter VI of the UN charter if it does not. It also stipulates that those responsible for any use of chemical weapons must be held accountable. So that is a binding and enforceable obligation with which the Syrian regime has to comply, and there will be further action if those deadlines are not met. It is interesting to note that there has been some concern about whether the regime has the capacity to remove that material, but OPCW has said that Syria has sufficient materiel and equipment to remove the chemical weapons quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about Russia’s influence in Syria. Of course Russia has a major role to play as a principal backer of Assad. It is vital that Russia uses its influence to press the Syrian regime, initially on humanitarian access and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, but also to hold Syria to the chemical weapons deadlines.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about the opposition in Syria and asked about our assessment of the ISIL. It is clear that it is not part of a legitimate opposition and that it is a dangerous terrorist operation, which of course we do not support. However, we must not accept the regime’s narrative that the only choice is between a dictator and extremists. We support the national coalition, which has a democratic, pluralist vision of what could be in Syria. If we do not support the moderates, they will be squeezed out by extremist elements on both sides.

My noble friend Lord Lamont and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, talked about Iran’s role in the Geneva process. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lamont for his time and expertise and for visiting Tehran in January. Those visits and the expertise that they bring are incredibly useful to us at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are open to discussing Syria with Iran, as the Foreign Secretary made clear in January of this year and also last year, and the PM raised that in a call with President Rouhani in November of last year. However, we have always said that the whole point of the Geneva process is to move towards a transitional Government. That is part of the Geneva I communiqué, which Iran has not at this stage endorsed. That was the problem with having it take part in the Geneva II discussions.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked about the Iranian nuclear programme and said that it should be a top priority. It is. We are committed to securing a comprehensive agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme. A successful resolution to that matter could positively change Iran’s relations with the Middle East and, indeed, the rest of the world, including Saudi Arabia, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield.

I note the concern of my noble friend Lord Lamont in relation to sanctions and I value his great expertise in this matter, but I fear that the Government agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that the bulk of international sanctions must remain in place and must be enforced while we negotiate. I am, of course, aware separately of the difficulties that the Iranian embassy in London has in securing a bank account. The UK and Iranian non-resident chargés have been working on this specific issue and we will continue to assist where we can while, of course, respecting that some of these are commercial decisions for banks.

My noble friend Lord Carlile wanted me to assure the House that we continue to raise the issue of human rights in Iran. I can give him that assurance. The human rights situation in Iran remains dire and we are determined to hold the Government to account. We frequently release statements condemning the human rights situation in Iran and have led action by the international community on this. We have designated more than 80 Iranians responsible for human rights violations under EU sanctions and we have helped to establish a UN special rapporteur on Iran and human rights and lobbied for the adoption of a human rights resolution on Iran.

The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, asked how we are normalising our relationship with Iran. We have improved our relationship with Iran on a step-by-step, reciprocal basis. Non-resident chargés were appointed last November. That was an important step and on the 20th of this month, we formally ended the protecting powers arrangements because we now feel that we can move to the next stage and have direct arrangements. Progress has been made but no decision has been made at this stage about the reopening of an embassy. We need to be confident that when that decision is made the staff will be safe and the embassy can function normally.

The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and my noble friend Lord Carlile spoke about Camp Ashraf. We condemn the killings at Camp Ashraf in Iraq on 1 September. We have called on the Government of Iraq to investigate this deplorable attack and to bring those responsible to justice. The UN has also called on the Government of Iraq to undertake a criminal investigation and to make their findings public.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

I am grateful to the Minister and I promise that I will not interrupt her for long, but I suggest that putting the onus on the Iraqis to investigate the killings at Camp Ashraf is a bit like putting a fox into a chicken house to count the chickens.

[Baroness Warsi]

I note the noble Lord’s comments.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about the Middle East peace process. We are co-ordinating closely with Secretary Kerry and his team to support their work and to ensure that the negotiations are successful. The Foreign Secretary discussed this with Secretary Kerry earlier this week. We are working closely with EU partners to provide meaningful practical support to both sides in taking the bold steps that are needed. We were a strong advocate for the December EU Foreign Affairs Council conclusions setting out an unprecedented package of support for both parties in the event of a final status agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Wright, also spoke about the Middle East peace process and specifically about settlements. We do not recognise the Occupied Territories, including the settlements, as part of Israel and we are advising British businesses to bear that in mind when considering their investments and activities in the region. This is, of course, a voluntary guide and it is ultimately a decision for individuals or companies whether to operate in settlements or the Occupied Territories, but the British Government would neither encourage nor offer support to such activity.

The noble Lord, Lord Stone, referred to his work on Egypt. I thank him for the interesting account of his delegation’s trip to Egypt and I welcome the creation of an APPG on Egypt, which is incredibly timely. We continue to believe that the best way to create stability and prosperity in Egypt is through a genuinely inclusive political process open to all political groups. We want the people of Egypt to have a successful democratic transition and we will support that, including through trade, investment, education, the British Council and tourism, but we have always made clear to the Egyptian authorities the concerns we have, especially concerns about development.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, commented on the situation in Libya, where the Libyan Government realise the challenges and see security as one of their top priorities. The UK is providing a range of support to help the Libyan authorities improve security and stability, including training up to 2,000 Libyan Armed Forces personnel in basic infantry skills.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Risby, referred to the religious dimension, including the complex Sunni-Shia sectarian dimension of conflict in the region, an issue that I spoke about in Oman only last week. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord Luce, and the Front Bench opposite for their warm words of support. In that speech, when laying out a potential approach, I talked about, among other things, reclaiming the spirit of Islam, much in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, talked about today. In that, I also talked about reclaiming the language that has tragically been hijacked by extremists, including the word jihad, which I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to use as the word was intended. It is a word describing self-evaluation and a fight against ignorance, intolerance and injustice—the very enlightenment to which my noble friend referred.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, specifically spoke about Syrian Christians and the challenges of what I described in Georgetown last year as an exodus of Christians from the Middle East, taking away the pluralistic nature which makes those nations successful. I used a term that noble Lords may not find very politically correct when I said that persecution was ultimately “bad for business”. You leave behind communities, which is bad for all communities that remain there. It is therefore in everybody’s interests for those communities to remain pluralistic. Ultimately, it is the birthplace of the religion. Christianity did not come to London or New York—that is the birthplace of the religion, and it is where we must support and fight for it to flourish.

I had a meeting with the Greek Catholic Patriarch, Gregorios III, when he visited, and we discussed the plight of Christians and the humanitarian crisis. Tragically, minorities are just another group that suffer at the time when all humanity appears to have broken down in that part of the world. We discussed the specific challenges that the Christian community has there.

The experience of states across the world has been that lasting stability is based on consent and legitimacy, not repression. It is a message that the Government take with us in all diplomatic activities throughout the Middle East, and indeed across the world. We will continue to do so.

The debate was so extensive that I am sure that I have missed many questions raised by noble Lords. If I have, I am sure that noble Lords will write to me and I will certainly respond in detail. Again, I thank noble Lords for taking part in this well attended and wide-ranging debate. I commend the Motion to the House.

Motion agreed.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014

Thursday 27th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014

Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014

Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Use of Armed Forces’ Chapels) Regulations 2014

Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014

Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law Order 2014

Motions to Approve

17:07

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 23 and 24 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the six Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc. Both this House and the other place overwhelmingly supported the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. The Bill was fully debated in detail, passed through all its parliamentary stages with overwhelming support in both Houses, and received Royal Assent on 17 July 2013. The passage of the Act was a historic moment, delivering, at last, full legal equality for lesbians and gay men in England and Wales. As such, it is a hallmark of the fair and inclusive society that we all wish to see. The Act, quite simply, extends the important institution of marriage to same sex couples, ending the unfairness which has prevented people from marrying simply because of their sexual orientation.

Noble Lords will recall that in our debates during the Act’s passage, some were worried that it would change the nature of marriage in some way. However, we made it clear then, and I am happy to make it clear again now, that the Act does not affect marriage as it currently exists between opposite-sex couples in any way at all. Nor does it affect the understanding of marriage held by many religious organisations and individuals that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. The Government entirely accept and respect that view of marriage, and the quadruple lock of religious protections in the Act ensures that no religious organisation or representative can be compelled in any way to participate in the marriage of a same-sex couple against their beliefs.

The Act does not change marriage but simply opens it up to more couples; that is the basis on which it secured wide agreement on all Benches in your Lordships’ House. The statutory instruments we are considering today simply give effect to the matters we have already agreed in the Act. These six affirmative instruments, along with the six negative instruments laid on 23 January and 13 February, are concerned only with the practical implementation of the Act’s provisions that will make marriage a reality for same-sex couples in England and Wales.

I will briefly explain each of the affirmative instruments in turn. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Consequential and Contrary Provisions and Scotland) Order 2014 does three main things. First, in Schedule 1, it makes amendments to primary legislation that are consequential on the coming into force of the 2013 Act, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. These amendments give effect to the central aim of the 2013 Act—that the existing institution of marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. That general position is achieved, in the main, through provisions in the Act which we refer to as the gloss—Section 11(1) and (2) and Schedule 3—which provide that references to marriage in existing law will be read as including the marriage of a same-sex couple, and a reference to a married person is to be read as including a reference to a person married to someone of the same sex.

However, in some cases there is also a need to make a consequential change to the law to ensure that the correct result is achieved so that the marriage of same-sex couples has the same effect as the marriage of opposite-sex couples. This is the case where there are historical gender-based differences and we need to equalise provision between married opposite-sex couples in order to treat all married people in the same way. In some cases we are also correcting minor omissions made when the Civil Partnership Act was brought into force.

We have always been clear that there are exceptions to this general approach, where for practical reasons married same-sex couples will be treated differently from married opposite-sex couples. In these cases we therefore need to make provision that is contrary to the gloss in order to achieve the right result, so the second thing that this order does this is to make contrary provision in Schedule 2. This approach is needed where the Government’s policy is that married same-sex couples should be treated in the same way as civil partners rather than married opposite-sex couples, and where historical gender-specific provisions are to be maintained. For example, we agreed this approach during the passage of the Act in relation to pension survivor benefits—although noble Lords will recall that we also committed to reviewing that position, and I will return to that review later. Schedule 3 to the order then makes textual amendments to existing provisions where this is needed to make the effect of the law on different couples completely clear.

Thirdly and finally, the order provides for marriages of same-sex couples under the law of England and Wales to be treated as civil partnerships in Scotland. The Scottish Ministers have given their consent to this provision, which is necessary pending the extension of marriage to same-sex couples under Scottish law.

17:15

I turn now to the Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Registration of Shared Buildings) Regulations 2014. Noble Lords will remember that we agreed the approach to the registration for the solemnisation of same-sex marriages of formally shared religious buildings—that is, those with agreements under the Sharing of Church Buildings Act 1969—in Schedule 1 to the Act. These regulations apply the agreed approach in the case of religious buildings that are informally shared. They deal with the processes for the registration and cancelling of the registration of informally shared religious buildings, and what happens when the identity of a sharing church changes.

The regulations will enable marriages of same-sex couples to take place in informally shared places of worship according to religious rites other than those of the Church of England and Church of Wales, but only if the governing authorities of all the qualifying sharing religious organisations have given consent to the building being registered for the marriages of same-sex couples. Sharing religious organisations can give consent to the use of the premises for marriages of same-sex couples by other sharers while still refusing to conduct such marriages themselves, and they can withhold their consent to the registration of the building if they wish, in which case no marriages of same-sex couples can take place there. The regulations also deal with the process to be followed where a religious building that is registered for the marriage of same-sex couples becomes shared, or where a shared religious building ceases to be shared.

I turn now to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014. These regulations do two things. First, they set out when a court in England and Wales will have jurisdiction in proceedings for divorce, judicial separation or annulment for married same-sex couples. Secondly, they set out when a court in England and Wales will recognise a judgment of a court of another EU member state in respect of such proceedings. These arrangements mirror those already in place for marriages of opposite-sex couples and civil partnerships.

I turn now to the Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Use of Armed Forces’ Chapels) Regulations 2014, which set out procedures for the Secretary of State to register and cancel the registration of Armed Forces’ chapels for marriage of same-sex couples. The regulations provide that, before applying to the Registrar General to register a military chapel for marriage of same-sex couples, the Secretary of State must consult the relevant governing authority of any religious organisation that makes significant use of the chapel. When considering whether and when to make an application, the Secretary of State must take into account various matters, including a same-sex couple who wish to have their marriage solemnised in the chapel and the rights of the religious organisations that use the chapel. The regulations also ensure that Armed Forces’ chapels consecrated by the Church of England under ecclesiastical law will not be registered for marriages of same-sex couples.

The Overseas Marriage (Armed Forces) Order 2014 allows marriage overseas where one of the parties is a member of the Armed Forces, a civilian subject to service discipline or their child, but in respect of marriage of same-sex couples only where the host country or territory has given consent in writing. The couple will need to nominate the part of the United Kingdom according to whose law they wish to marry. It allows religious rites to be used, but religious ceremonies for same-sex couples can be conducted only if the relevant religious organisation has opted in and the authorised person is willing to be present. The order does not apply to Northern Ireland. Opposite-sex Armed Forces couples wishing to marry overseas under the law of Northern Ireland will continue to use the existing procedures under the Foreign Marriage Act 1892.

Finally, I turn to the Consular Marriages and Marriages under Foreign Law Order 2014. Like the previous order, it replaces the existing regime for marriage of opposite-sex couples in overseas consulates with one which is extended to include same-sex couples, and it includes a requirement for the couple to nominate the relevant part of the UK under whose law they wish to be married. The reason for this approach is that, until the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill is implemented, marriage of same-sex couples will be lawful only in England and Wales.

I will touch briefly on some issues that are not covered in these instruments but in which I know that some noble Lords are particularly interested. First, some have asked when couples who are in civil partnerships will be able to convert their civil partnership into marriage. Our priority has always been to ensure that same-sex couples who are not currently in a civil partnership and who have been waiting to marry in order to formalise their relationship are able to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. I am delighted that we are now doing that earlier than we anticipated, so that the first same-sex weddings will be able to take place on 29 March. We understand that some couples in a civil partnership want to be able to convert their civil partnership into a marriage quickly, and we are working hard to ensure that they can do so as soon as possible. We aim to do this before the end of 2014.

Similarly, we are working hard to implement the provisions in the Act which, for the first time, will allow people to change their legal gender without having to end their marriage, where both spouses want the marriage to continue. Again, we aim to do this before the end the year.

The Act also requires the Government to undertake three reviews, and the House might find it helpful to know about the progress on these. First, Section 14 of the Act requires us to review whether non-religious belief organisations, such as humanists, should be able to conduct legally valid marriages of both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. As part of the review, we will work with interested belief organisations, including the British Humanist Association, and will carry out a full public consultation on the issues involved. We expect to publish a report setting out the outcome of the review by the end of 2014, as required by the Act.

Secondly, Section 15 of the Act requires a review of the operation and future of civil partnerships in England and Wales. As part of the review, we launched a public consultation on 23 January and will consider responses to the consultation alongside evidence about marriage of same-sex couples, civil partnership and possible options for the future.

As I mentioned earlier, the Government are also undertaking a review to explore what the costs and other effects would be of making changes to reduce or eliminate differences in survivor benefits in occupational pensions, as required by Section 16 of the Act. I can assure the House that the review is currently under way, and is looking at the differences in survivor benefits between various different groups. We are also taking views from key stakeholders. We will publish a report on the review before 1 July this year, as required by the Act. I commend these statutory instruments to the House.

[Lord Alli (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this series of statutory instruments introduced by the Government today. It is really hard, sitting on these Benches, to try to find a form of words with which to congratulate the Government when they do something well, but not congratulate them too much because they are on the Benches opposite. However, I am going to forgo convention because I think they have done a great job to bring forward so quickly the regulations to allow same-sex marriages. The way in which they have been tackling the reviews has been admirable too. It is probably the last time I will say that, so I would savour the moment.

This is a time for great pride in this House and in the role that it played in ensuring safe passage of same-sex marriages on to the statute book. As I have spoken to people up and down the country, I have detected—and I do not know whether other noble Lords have done so—a real sea change in their attitude towards this House. We did a good thing in passing this legislation and we should be proud of what we did, and of the way and manner in which we did it.

I pay tribute to Ben Summerskill, the former chief executive of Stonewall, who has left the organisation. I know that many noble Lords on all sides of the House would want to thank him for his work, not just on this Bill, but on others as well. In doing so, I welcome Ruth to her post as acting chief executive. I hope that she will not come and visit us as many times as Ben did, but she is certainly welcome.

I am sure that Ben would say to me that it is not right to let this moment pass without reflecting on some of the not so positive changes in the law that have taken place internationally over the past seven months. New repressive and brutal laws were enacted in Uganda only this week. Every one of us would be in prison for seven years for the speeches that we make today or for the speeches that we made during the passage of the same-sex marriage Bill, and there would be life imprisonment for many of us who are gay. Publishing the names of gay activists in the national newspaper as a way of inciting violence and endangering the lives of those brave men and women is disgusting and we should all condemn it. Also, for the gay men and women in India, the High Court’s decision to recriminalise homosexuality must be a real blow. We should think, too, of the gay men and women in Russia who are being violently victimised by new laws. We have seen much progress in this country, as is plain from today and from the speed at which the Government have moved to implement the Act, but in Africa, the Middle East and many other countries in the Commonwealth, there is still a lot to do.

I also hope that the Minister will work with the Foreign Office in continuing to press for the human rights of all citizens around the world. Can she now look at recognising same-sex marriage for couples who have been legally married under state law in the United States? We will not recognise it in this country as we think that it is a federal, not a state, matter. It would send out a signal to our American cousins that change needs to take place in America too. Now that we have same-sex marriage in this country, we can recognise same-sex marriage which has taken place legally and has been endorsed by those states in America.

The Minister may think that this is straying a little off the path but I think that it would also be useful if the Foreign Office put in the Library a consolidated note of all the things it is doing in terms of promoting gay and lesbian rights. I know that it is working hard in many cases but it is quite difficult to find all the different strands of work in a single place.

Finally, I thank the Government not just for implementing this legislation but for the sense of joy they have brought in doing so. It will be a lasting legacy of this Parliament, uniting all the Benches and all our parties, and proving what we all know—that this House is a place for good, it works and, more often than the other place might suggest, it is on the side of the people.

17:30

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for her very careful explanation of the long and complex orders and regulations before us. She made them extremely clear. When the Conservative Party put in its manifesto for the 2010 election a commitment to legislate for same-sex marriages, I wonder whether those who wrote that paragraph of the manifesto had the remotest conception of what would be involved in the way of changing legislation. The three schedules to the main order that my noble friend described, covering nearly 24 pages of typescript and literally hundreds of amendments to existing legislation and orders, speaks volumes about what had to be done and what has been done very successfully, as far as I can make out, by the department’s advisers and lawyers.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Alli, I rejoice that the first same-sex marriages will be happening sooner than had originally been planned. I have accepted the invitation of the Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, the Reverend Mark Oakley, to a celebration of the first same-sex marriages at the end of this month and I am sure that I am not alone in looking forward to it. That is a remarkable development and I know that many others in the Church will recognise this as a move in the right direction.

I want to raise one specific matter which my noble friend mentioned towards the end of her speech and that is the desire of couples who are in civil partnerships to convert their civil partnerships to marriages as soon as possible. I tabled a Question on this a while ago and the reply from my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble appeared in a list of Written Answers yesterday. Apparently, he was not satisfied with the first draft of the answer that he was given and he told me that it would be a while before we got it but I now have it. However, it raises a number of questions of which I have given my noble friend notice. It says that the Government hope to achieve this by the end of this year. That is nine months away and one has to ask why. It says that these aspects of the Act,

“involve developing and implementing completely new procedures and processes”.—[Official Report, 26/02/14; col. WA261.]

Can the Minister explain to the House what those completely new procedures and processes are? After all, a civil partnership is half way there already. Compared with what has had to be done in these orders to make the rest of the law applicable to same-sex marriages, one would have thought at first sight that it would not have been too difficult to have done this, if not at the same time, at least no more than a few weeks or a month or two afterwards. Why so long? What are these procedures? Will there have to be further orders? Is it going to be necessary for Parliament to approve the orders?

The point has been made to me that some people in civil partnerships are elderly and are anxious that they should convert to marriages with the legal consequences of that as soon as possible. If one dies before that has been done, then the handling of property and so on is different from what it would be if they were married. To be told that they may have to wait nine months or more before this can be done has caused a good deal of dismay and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give a better explanation than my noble friend Lord Gardiner gave at the end of his reply in the Hansard published this morning.

Apart from that I very much echo what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has said. I think the Government have done a magnificent job on this and I take some pride that in this House, in contrast with the other place, on every single Division a majority of Conservatives supported the Bill. We may be on average 20 to 25 years older than they are at the other end and yet we achieved that. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, that is a considerable tribute to the House of Lords.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, there is an African proverb which says:

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together”.

We are coming to the end of a very long legislative journey. It began in 2002 when my noble friend Lord Lester drafted the first civil partnership legislation, which was withdrawn but was then swiftly taken up and adopted by the then Labour Government, for which they deserve enormous credit. It continued with my right honourable friend in another place, Nick Clegg, in early 2010 stating his position that there should be equal marriage. He was closely and swiftly followed by David Cameron, who deserves enormous credit. My redoubtable colleague, Lynne Featherstone, notwithstanding the fact that this was not in the coalition agreement, announced in 2011 that there would be a consultation on equal marriage and civil partnership. It is as a result of all that work that we have arrived at the situation we are in now.

It was a joyous day on 15 July 2013 when, in the sunshine, we were all serenaded by the London Gay Men’s Chorus outside, as they celebrated with us several weeks and months of very hard work by Members from all parts of your Lordships’ House. We were steered through that process so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, in a truly remarkable piece of ministerial work. It was a momentous occasion. Since last summer it has been my privilege to meet people all over the UK. I have been a Member of this House since 1999 and I cannot remember so many members of the public going out of their way to express their thanks to this House for doing its job in passing this legislation. They know the true import of what it will mean in their communities.

There has been one very recent discordant note, from the House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage, issued on 15 February. It was a somewhat dispiriting announcement, and we have to accept that for our colleagues who are members of the Church of England and the Church in Wales, their road to equal treatment will be longer and tougher than they had perhaps expected. I say to the bishops that the default position in the legislation throughout our discussions was that those religions that did not wish to recognise or to celebrate same-sex marriage would not have to do so. At every point that was conceded. Throughout our debates on the subject, those of us who believe the church’s position to be wrong held our peace, and we have still not had that discussion.

However, I hope that the bishops will understand and respect that even in these statutory instruments that same spirit of recognition of their position remains, particularly in the recognition of military chapels and on shared premises. I hope that the individual members of churches who support same-sex marriages can look forward to a point when they can have a dialogue with those members who do not yet formally support them. The noble Lord, Lord Alli is right. The legislation for those of us who have the great luck to live in this country means a tremendous amount. All over the world our friends and colleagues who are gay face the most horrible oppression and intimidation. The church, as with other organisations, has a role to play in making those people’s lives safe.

On 29 March, England and Wales will take one step further to becoming countries that afford dignity and respect to all citizens, including those of us who are gay. I am delighted that Scotland will be coming along fairly swiftly afterwards. I thank all noble Lords and Members of another place who joined the person who today I can call my noble friend Lord Alli, me and the rest of us on what has been a truly wonderful journey.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, want to associate myself with the remarks of noble Lords this afternoon, particularly those of my noble friend Lord Alli. I, too, congratulate Stonewall on all its hard work across all parties in ensuring that this final act of equality is achieved. In particular, I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Alli about Ben Summerskill, who has done a tremendous job over recent times, and, of course, I welcome Ruth Hunt as the acting director of Stonewall.

This country is now a beacon of equality. I am proud of the record of the previous Government in achieving many changes, not least bringing in an equal age of consent, civil partnerships and the end of discrimination; I am incredibly proud of all those things. I am proud, too, of this Government and of our Prime Minister, who was determined to see this final Act of equality through. Therefore, I want to associate myself with all noble Lords who have spoken today. This country is indeed a beacon of equality but, as noble Lords have said, it brings into sharp focus the difference with those countries where homosexuality is still illegal—indeed, not only illegal but a criminal act punishable, in some cases, by death; some of us have seen the horrific films that have been circulated.

I am also proud of the tremendous cross-party support. Today is one of those rare occasions where I want to break with convention and refer to noble Lords opposite as my noble friends, because they have become friends in this fine battle. Politics is often personal, and I declare an interest in that I have been in a civil partnership since the very first day it was possible. My husband and I were incredibly proud when we were able to do that. We had planned the ceremony for 12 months previously but, ironically, the delays in this House delayed our ability to set the date that we wanted, which was on my birthday. As it happened, my birthday fell on the day when civil partnerships came into force, so we were able to do that. However, my husband has said to me in the strongest possible terms, “Why can’t we get married? It has been in the papers, it has been announced and our families are ringing us up. My niece and nephew spoke to me only last week and asked why we can’t get married”. At one point, my husband suggested—my noble friend Lord Alli knows this—“Let’s get divorced so that we can get married”; I managed to put him off. Some friends of ours who had been in a civil partnership—again, my noble friend Lord Alli knows these people—were so confident and so proud that they proposed to each other on Christmas Day, invited all their friends from New York to come over in March and even booked the hotel. Then they discovered that they would not be able to marry because they were in a civil partnership.

I do not want to be churlish because it is fantastic news that the date has been brought forward. It is fantastic that we will see the first same-sex couples getting married so soon. However, I must associate my remarks with those of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Why does it take so long to organise allowing people to convert their civil partnerships into marriage? I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who did such a fantastic job in pushing the Bill through Parliament, here. She knows that I raised at the very first stage the question of when we would be able to have a ceremony to convert our civil partnerships into marriages. She gave me those assurances and I know that the assurances are there. Will the Minister, in her response, please do more than say, “We hope by the end of the year”? Will she set a date as quickly as possible? It does not matter when that date is. We are like other people who get married in that it takes a bit of planning—in my husband’s case, a lot of planning—and we need to book things. So will the Minister please set the date, so that I can set the date?

17:45

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

It would seem odd to me if I were to just sit here silently after people, particularly the noble Baroness, have said what they have. First, I am sure that no one in the House of Bishops would have approached with anything other than irony the fact that the statement was issued on 14 February. Secondly, I entirely associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, about Uganda and other countries where such repressive measures have been taken. I am fairly certain that no one in the House of Bishops would want to say anything different.

The next thing to say is that, without any sense of disloyalty to the college to which I belong, there was a variety of opinion on how we should approach the problem. It is a problem because we are dealing with a very long tradition, set out in the Book of Common Prayer. For a church that has a tradition that now goes back 450 years in what it has been saying about marriage, to move in a significantly different direction is a significant shift. There will be a variety of opinions, but that is an issue.

The second issue refers to what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was touching on. We are part of a worldwide communion. One very difficult thing for a worldwide communion is somehow to balance being sensitive to different cultural values in different places. By different cultural values, I do not mean repressive measures being passed in Acts by Governments, which none of us would support. That puts us in a particularly difficult position, because all the time we are trying to ensure that we listen to what people here are saying and what people’s consciences here are saying but, at the same time, to stay with the communion.

Back in the 1988 Lambeth conference, when there was a fairly heated debate about polygamy in some African countries, the western provinces in the Anglican communion worked very hard, saying, “We understand that you are in a different place from where we are, and we are not going to take a hard line on this at the moment”. We have not yet got to that position in the communion. For me to stay other than loyal to the House of Bishops’ statement would be more than irresponsible, because I know that one real concern is that it is not just about us and the Church of England, it is also about the Anglican communion. That is a key issue, and may not have been made quite as clear as it might have been when the statement was issued.

As your Lordships will see, I am not speaking from a prepared text. I think that there is universal concern in the Church of England that we move away from any sense of homophobia and do all that we can to affirm people in different sorts of relationships, but, at the moment, that is where the house finds itself, because it had to respect the consciences of people bringing very different opinions.

I hope that that makes it clear to the House that that was not being done in an unthinking, hardhearted or insensitive way—it was certainly not intended to be—but your Lordships will be very pleased to hear that every Bishop, as far as I know, who is a Member of the House received an envelope last week with a note reading, “With compliments for your pastoral sensitivity”, and the envelope included a humbug.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

My Lords, as one who was blessed with more than 50 years of a very happy marriage, I think it is appropriate just to pause for a moment to give tribute to marriage itself. I am so very happy for my many gay friends that they will be able to participate in something which is one of the great blessings to human beings. I join in the congratulations to my noble friend and her colleagues on having brought this legislation forward, and on speeding up the timetable and the processes. I know how very much it means to so many of my very good friends. I know that at least one of the couples who are very good friends of mine, and who are in a civil partnership, like the noble Lord, are eagerly waiting for the point at which it will be possible to translate that into a marriage.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but I am one of the Members of this House who was bridesmaid to my noble friend Lord Collins. I have forgotten how many years ago. All of us are now Peers in this House. All of us dressed up beautifully; I am just worried what we will have to wear the second time round, because we are all a bit older and it is a bit more difficult to get us into the things that we wore before.

I warmly welcome this. Obviously, knowing the noble Lords, I know exactly how sincere they are in wanting this to happen. I am sure everybody agrees with that. I firmly believe that we should not be embarrassed to congratulate the Government. If the Government are doing good things, we should acknowledge that. It would be good if we had that reciprocal arrangement all the time in the House. Nevertheless I am a pragmatist. I congratulate unreservedly the noble Baroness on the work that she has done. It is tremendous. I share the joy that people are feeling at this moment in the House.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships, but I was not part of your Lordships’ House when noble Lords agreed to pass equal marriage, so I am going to take my opportunity now.

I have to declare an interest. I am married to a man, and it is not the first time that I have been married. I remember going on an extended interview process to become one of the most senior police officers in the UK. One of the questions in the pre-interview questionnaire was, “What is the most difficult decision you have ever had to make, first, in your professional life and, secondly, in your private life?”. In the answer to the second, I put, “Having been married for five years, telling my wife that I was gay”. I never believed that I would be able to marry again.

In 2010 I took part in a debate at the Liberal Democrat Party conference where we were the first party to adopt equal marriage as party policy. I told the people at that conference about my marriage. Having fallen in love with a Norwegian, in January 2009—Norway having decided to abolish civil partnerships and allow everybody, whether they were opposite-sex or same-sex couples, to get married—I stood in the courthouse in Oslo in front of a judge. When she said, “We are here today to witness the marriage of Brian and Petter”, the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage really struck home.

I was not part of your Lordships’ House when the legislation on equal marriage was passed, but I have to tell noble Lords what a difference it makes to me, to my husband, and to people like me. It is important that your Lordships pass these statutory instruments today.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we would all agree—certainly those of us who joined forces last summer to ensure that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill reached the statute book—that today is a cause for celebration. I was reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about that happy day when I found myself outside on the pavement with the Minister holding a placard that said, “Girls marry girls—get over it”. I have the picture on my phone and I promise that I will publish it at some point. That was indeed a happy day and a happy event, and today we are taking another step nearer the first time that an actual marriage can take place between a same-sex couple.

I know that the Government have been determined to allow that happy event to happen as soon as possible and I congratulate them on doing that. This means that there are still some matters outstanding, and the fact that we want this to happen as soon as possible should not excuse us from the need to do some scrutiny.

I have given the Minister notice of a few questions, some of which have already been asked today. First, of course, how soon can the conversion of a civil partnership to a same-sex marriage take place and what timetable might achieve that? The Act provides for same-sex couples seeking to convert civil partnerships into marriages to do so, as well as for an opposite-sex married couple to remain married where one of the partners wishes to change gender—an important matter which we dealt with last summer. These are provisions which the update says should come into force by the end of the year. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some indication of when further necessary legislation will be brought forward, as well as providing an update on when we might expect to see these provisions come into force.

From the commencement of the Scottish Act, if a trans person living in England or Wales wishes to get married and wants to ensure that they could not later be subject to spousal veto when applying for gender recognition while in that marriage, they could well be able to circumvent this process by opting to get married in Scotland—but why should they? Can the Minister explain whether a couple whose marriage was registered in Scotland but who subsequently lived in England would be able to apply to the sheriff courts for their interim GRC, or will the Government review and revise this entire area so that they do not need to do so?

At present, of the 11 legal jurisdictions in Europe which have same-sex marriage, only those trans people in existing marriages registered in the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales are subject to a spousal veto on their access to gender recognition while married. The other 10 legal jurisdictions, including Scotland, allow gender recognition without requiring the consent of the trans person’s spouse. We discussed this issue during the passage of the Bill but it is not covered, obviously, by these orders. Does the Minister at least accept that this issue does not sit well with the drive for equality for all groups? Will she therefore seek to continue working on this to make the changes that trans people want to see?

Turning to the issue of pensions, which was debated at length and with some passion throughout the passage of the Bill, Section 16 places a duty on the Secretary of State to arrange a review, as we have recognised. I am very happy to hear that this seems to be on track and will be published within the year. However, is a consultation going to take place? As far as I am aware, as yet there is no public consultation being issued by the Department for Work and Pensions. Given that there are only 18 weeks left between now and when the review is supposed to be complete, what is going to happen and how might that consultation take place? Indeed, if it is to be launched, can the Minister offer an assurance that the Government will not simply be listening to the occupational pensions industry, which will quite clearly have strong and shared financial interests in this report saying one thing, and that there will be a consultation which listens to and consults independent experts?

If the Secretary of State decides in his report that the law on survivor benefits should be changed to fit in with the spirit of the Act, will the Minister ensure that the necessary orders are brought forward quickly to redress the inequality as soon as possible? As I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware, this issue has been in the news over the past week following the conclusion of a case under the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which found that it was legal under European law for employers and pension scheme trustees to discriminate against same-sex couples. If it becomes clear that companies are not going to do this voluntarily, the sooner the Government complete their deliberations the better for all the couples concerned—even if it is just that they will now know where they will stand financially in later life and be able to plan accordingly.

18:00

I seek some clarification about whether the Government intend to allow foreign civil partners to convert their civil partnerships and civil unions to marriage in England and Wales in the future. Similarly, where civil partnerships or civil unions established in a foreign country are converted to a marriage in Scotland, will these be recognised as marriages in England and Wales?

I am concerned about the use of the Armed Forces’ chapels regulations, which the Minister has explained to the House. While it is obviously to be welcomed that these chapels can now be registered, I am worried that this provision is unlikely to result in very many requests for registration actually being approved. The wording of the order is:

“In considering whether to make an application and the timing of such an application, the Secretary of State must have due regard to the following matters … any agreement or objection by the relevant governing authority of a relevant religious organisation as to the proposed application”.

These regulations require the Secretary of State to undertake a process of consultation before making an application to establish the views of the faiths and their congregations that make significant regular use of the relevant chapel. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the majority of Armed Forces’ chapels are shared by several faiths, which may adopt different positions towards the marriage of same-sex couples. If the results of the consultation favour the beliefs of faiths that do not accept same-sex marriage, does that mean that same-sex marriages in Armed Forces’ chapels would be vetoed and what do the Government propose should happen under those circumstances?

Could the Minister advise us on whether she has undertaken any initial discussions to determine what the attitude of various religious authorities is likely to be? For example, if a place of worship is used by a faith that wants to offer same-sex marriage and one that does not, will one position automatically trump the other, as it has done elsewhere in this legislation? I am trying to get to the bottom of how a decision will be made if there are two different faiths using one building or chapel and one wants to permit same-sex marriage and one is opposed to it. Given that the Secretary of State for Defence’s current views are in opposition to this legislation, I am slightly concerned about how the decision would be made.

Finally, there is the issue of guidance. The Explanatory Notes mention that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will produce some overarching guidance on the Act itself. Could the Minister tell us when that guidance will be published, who it will be aimed at, what input her department will have in its drafting, and how comprehensive distribution can be ensured, given the severely reduced resources of the EHRC over recent years?

I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her openness, her consultation and the way in which these orders have been handled. It has been a continuation of how we took the Bill through to become an Act last year. I know we are not quite at the end of the road yet, but I can assure the noble Baroness that she will have our full co-operation to make sure that we get to where we want to be as soon as possible.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I thank the noble Lords for their tributes, their thanks and, above all, for working together on this. It has been incredibly heart-warming to work on this Act and to be taking through these SIs now. As my noble friend Lady Barker has said, what a joy it was to wear the pink carnations of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and to go outside and be serenaded by the London Gay Men’s Chorus. It really was a tremendous joy. Extending marriage to same-sex couples is about righting a historical unfairness. The principles and arguments for doing this have already been fully debated and supported by both Houses and the Act is on the statute book.

Noble Lords will remember that there were majorities for this legislation in every group in this House. My noble friend Lord Jenkin reminded us of that. They may also remember—I analysed it at the time—that there was a very interesting gender difference in our voting patterns. Among women who voted at Second Reading, 83% thought that the Bill should proceed, while 17% dissented. May I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that he consider us all as bridesmaids? I am sure we would enjoy it.

I noted the generosity of spirit that was shown, especially in the later stages of the Bill, by those for whom this legislation was a very difficult challenge. I commend them for that generosity of spirit. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said in this regard and what the right reverend Prelate has just said.

As I made clear, I hope, when I introduced this debate, these orders simply implement the decisions we made during the passage of the Act. They make sensible arrangements for the treatment of marriages of same-sex couples in a range of legislation. I went over the details in my introduction.

I shall address some of the points made by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked me to provide more detail on what processes and procedures are required before couples can convert their civil partnership into marriage, and I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said about his husband’s anxiety that we proceed extremely speedily. Briefly, the procedures and processes that we are looking at are changing various IT systems used by the General Register Office. I realise that this is not very romantic information, and neither are the other bits here. There is also delivering guidance and training to operational staff for making legislative changes and designing new application forms and certificates. Although these things are under way, I know that noble Lords will appreciate that they all take time. The conversion process will ensure that the rights and responsibilities of a couple in a civil partnership are protected—so do not get divorced—when they convert their relationship into a marriage. The effect of the conversion will be that they will be treated as if their marriage started on the date that their civil partnership was formed, although it sounds as if the noble Lord may be celebrating two dates in future. This is important for the couple, so we need to ensure that the new legal and administrative arrangements work properly.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked whether further orders will be required. I can confirm that various further pieces of secondary legislation will be required. I am sure that noble Lords look forward to discussing them.

My noble friend asked about delays and about when people in a civil partnership die before they have managed to convert their relationship into a marriage. We completely understand that couples in this difficult situation want to be able to fulfil their dream of being married, and we are working hard to make that possible as soon as we can. I remind my noble friend that the legal rights of such couples are assured by their civil partnership, so there will be no practical detriment to them by being civil partners rather than a married couple. However, we hear what noble Lords had to say. We are glad that they are pleased that we have managed to bring forward this date, and we are working very speedily to address the other issues. I will certainly feed back the points that noble Lords have made, especially the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that he needs to know what the date might be.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked a number of questions, and I am very grateful to her for flagging to me in advance the areas that she wanted to probe. She asked about pensions and, in particular, the review of survivor benefits that I mentioned in my introductory remarks. I can confirm that the review is under way and the terms of reference have been published in the Libraries of both Houses. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury are assessing the costs involved with any changes to the arrangements in public service and private occupational schemes. I spoke to my honourable friend Steve Webb about this the other day. They are also making arrangements to consult external stakeholders in line with the requirements of the Act. I assure the noble Baroness that these stakeholders will include representatives of the LGB community and trade unions as well as pension trustees, industry bodies and parliamentarians with a key interest in this review. We are continuing to make arrangements over the next few weeks so that the consultation begins in March. There are a number of issues that it needs to cover and a final report will be published on 1 July. We note the interest of the noble Baroness in this.

The legislation does not require a full public consultation, so we have not made additional plans for publication via the website. I am happy to feed back the concerns of noble Lords to the Treasury and DWP.

The noble Baroness asked about the implications of a particular case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. On 18 February, the tribunal upheld the appeal and accepted the Government’s submission that the framework directive did not have retrospective effect in relation to employment and pension rights accrued before the directive came into force. In this particular instance it is open to Mr Walker to apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with any further details if that would help.

The noble Baroness also asked about a transgender person who might seek to marry in Scotland and whether they would be subject to a “spousal veto” when applying for gender recognition. She flagged up a difference in the Scottish legislation. She asked whether a couple whose marriage was registered in Scotland but who subsequently lived in England would be able to apply to the sheriff court for their interim gender recognition certificate and whether we would review that area. From the outset I will be clear that there is no spousal veto in the Act that we passed. Regardless of a spouse’s views, all applicants will be able to obtain their gender recognition. The Scottish system will work in a very similar way to the English system in most respects: couples who wish to stay together following gender recognition will each need to complete statutory declarations to that effect. If a statutory declaration is not received from the non-trans spouse, the gender recognition panel will issue an interim gender recognition certificate, which will enable proceedings to be brought to end the marriage.

However, the Scottish Act differs from our own Act in that applicants in a marriage registered in Scotland will have the option of applying to the sheriff court for their full gender recognition certificate before their marriage has ended. Applicants in England and Wales will have to wait until their marriage is ended to obtain their full certificate. In those circumstances there will be no automatic entitlement to a new marriage certificate and the non-trans spouse will be able to use the issue of the interim gender recognition as a ground for divorce indefinitely.

Jurisdiction in matrimonial proceedings depends primarily on whether a couple is able to establish the necessary connection with the country in which the couple is applying. In England and Wales the jurisdiction rules are set out in the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, as amended by the 2013 Act. In every case it will depend on the couple’s circumstances as to which court will have the jurisdiction to hear the proceedings. Following implementation of our Act, I assure the noble Baroness that we have committed to monitor the position and we will continue to consider very carefully any further evidence that trans-stakeholders and, indeed, anyone else affected provides.

The noble Baroness asked me about a situation that may arise in Scotland in which civil partnerships or civil unions established in a foreign country are converted to a marriage in Scotland and whether they will be recognised as marriages in England and Wales. The Scottish Government will be consulting on this issue and we will of course work very closely with them to ensure that the law across the UK is coherent and help them to implement their own Bill. It is too soon to anticipate what may happen as a result of that.

The noble Baroness also asked about guidance and training in support of the Act. A wide range of public and internal staff guidance is being produced by various organisations, including the General Register Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and NGOs such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Stonewall and Citizens Advice. The guidance covers a range of practical, legal, operational and other issues and is aimed at a variety of audiences. We are confident that there will be sufficient information for those wishing to marry, register buildings, appoint authorised persons and so on, to find out what they need to know. For example, the General Register Office has produced and is producing a variety of guidance and training materials in different formats for registration staff in local authorities, in addition to information and guidance on how to register buildings to faith groups and the public. I pay tribute to Ben Summerskill, as did the noble Lord, Lord Alli, for his indomitable work in that area. Stonewall has produced guidance for same-sex couples considering marriage and converting their civil partnership to a marriage, which covers their rights and responsibilities and the steps that they need to take when arranging a marriage, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission will also produce a range of guidance. I hope that the husband of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will find all those pieces of paper useful.

18:15

Finally, on military chapels, the noble Baroness asked me if it is possible for a veto to be exercised as regards what happens within a military chapel for a same-sex couple. With the exception of chapels which are consecrated, the Secretary of State must be able to exercise their discretion, so there can be no absolute power of veto over the decision on registration. However, the regulations are clear as to the matters to which the Secretary of State must have clear regard. Important considerations will be the views of the religious organisations that are significant regular users of the chapel, and the availability of a chaplain who is willing to conduct the wedding of a same-sex couple and who belongs to a religious organisation that has opted in. Currently, none of the religious organisations that license chaplains to serve with the Armed Forces has announced its intention to opt into the marriage of same-sex couples. The 2013 Act is clear in requiring the consent of both the religious organisation whose rites would be used and the minister of religion involved.

In drawing to a close I will return to the reasons we so overwhelmingly agreed the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act last year. The removal of the final barrier to full legislative equality for lesbian and gay people by giving them access to the institution of marriage is a moment we can all be proud to have been part of—and that has certainly been echoed today. We have done this in a way which protects and promotes the religious freedom of those who believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and of that we can also be proud. I am confident that it will not be long before we look back on this moment and wonder why we waited so long. Listening to my noble friend Lord Paddick makes that even clearer.

Enabling same-sex couples to marry will not only bring fulfilment and joy to thousands of couples and their friends and families but is also a clear demonstration that Britain is a fair and inclusive place, where everyone has equal value. The noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord Collins, and the right reverend Prelate are right to highlight the contrast with the situation in some countries around the world. We should treasure the freedoms that we have and be ever vigilant as we seek to support those who are less fortunate around the world. These statutory instruments are necessary to make marriage of same-sex couples a reality, and I hope the House will approve them.

Motions agreed.

House adjourned at 6.18 pm.